Appeal No. 95-3444
Application 08/037,304
that “recess 33b [of Beberman] can be compared to a tab,” and the
Beberman tab extends at substantially 90 degrees from plate 33.
We will not sustain this rejection, for even if Gagnon were
modified in view of Beberman as proposed by the examiner, we do
not consider that the resulting structure would contain tabs as
recited in claim 1. In the first place, we do not believe that
the projections and recesses 33a and 33b of Beberman may be
construed as “tabs.” In general, words in a claim will be given
their ordinary and accustomed meaning, unless it appears that the
inventor used them differently, Envirotech Corp. v. Al George,
Inc., 730 F.2d 753, 759, 221 USPQ 473, 477 (Fed. Cir. 1984), and
a claim will be given its broadest reasonable interpretation,
consistent with the specification. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393,
1404, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969). The dictionary contains a 3
large number of definitions of the word “tab;” consistent with
appellants’ specification, and as normally applied in a
structural sense, we consider that “tab” connotes a cantilevered
member extending from a surface, such as “a projection from a
card used as an aid in filing” or an “appendage,” both of which
are dictionary definitions, or such as the tabs 22 shown in the
3 Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1971).
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007