Appeal No. 96-2741
Application 08/227,093
answer."); McBride v. Merrell Dow and Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
800 F.2d 1208, 1210-11 (D.C. 1986). Nevertheless, our
decision considered the broadest reasonable interpretation of
"cradle" and stated (D9):
We agree with the examiner that the "cradle" of
claim 11 broadly reads on clamps 5 and 7 in Kotitalo.
Claim 11 does not state that the telephone is supported
by the cradle or recite any other structure of the cradle
and so does not require that we interpret the structure
in Kotitalo that supports the handset (center part 17,
bottom part 16, bridge part 16', prongs 16'', and fluting
16''' described at column 2, lines 2-11) to be the
cradle.
Appellants do not address our reasoning as to the
broadest reasonable interpretation. That appellants wish to
have a narrower interpretation of the word "cradle" to avoid
the prior art is not persuasive of error. The telephone in
Kotitalo is cradled both by clamps 5 and 7 and by the support
structure described at column 2, lines 2-11. Appellants have
not convinced us that a telephone can have only a single
cradle or that part of the structure that supports the
telephone cannot be termed a cradle. Appellants have not
convinced us that it was error to consider the structure of
clamps 5 and 7, which keep the handset in place (col. 2, lines
66-68), to be a cradle. Accordingly, we deny appellants'
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007