Ex parte EHRLICH - Page 8

          Appeal No. 96-3263                                                          
          Application No. 08/363,594                                                  

               In proceedings before the PTO, claims in an application are            
          to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent             
          with the specification, and claim language should be read in                
          light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of             
          ordinary skill in the art.  In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218           
          USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).   In accordance with this                   
          principle, we interpret claim 1 as setting forth that the                   
          coupling clip member is inserted in the circular aperture of the            
          support panel means since the claim is directed to a cargo                  
          securement assembly.  Thus, the difference between claim 1 and              
          ANCRA is that ANCRA lacks any teaching of using Part No. 43451-11           
          with a track having circular apertures.                                     

               The examiner determined that it would have been obvious to             
          one having ordinary skill in the art to have used ANCRA Part No.            
          43451-11 with a circular aperture in view of the desirability of            
          using a rectangular coupling clip in a circular aperture to allow           
          the coupling clip to swivel to accommodate the desired load as              
          taught by Berns.                                                            

               Our review of ANCRA and Berns reveals that the teachings of            
          the references would not have rendered the claimed subject matter           


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007