Appeal No. 96-2862
Application No. 08/030,704
721 F.2d 1540, 1555, 220 USPQ 303, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 105 S. Ct. 172 (1984). When viewed in this context, we
are satisfied that the above-noted magazine article falls far
short of establishing long-felt need.
In view of the foregoing we will sustain the rejection of
claims 9 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined
teachings of Hutchison and Schuplin.
Considering now the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of
claims 7, 10-13 and 23 as being unpatentable over Hutchison in
view of Schuplin and claim 24 as being unpatentable over
Hutchison in view of Schuplin and Muirhead, each of these
rejections is based on the examiner’s view that the members 20,
22 of Schuplin can be considered to correspond to the “plurality
of spaced elongated fingers with thickened tips “as set forth in
claim 10 and has cited a dictionary definition of “tip” in
support thereof. We must point out, however, that the
indiscriminate reliance on definitions found in dictionaries can
often produce absurd results. See In re Salem, 553 F.2d 676,
682, 193 USPQ 513, 518 (CCPA 1977). More importantly, terms in a
claim should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the
specification and construed as those skilled in the art would
construe them (see In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566,
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007