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
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007