Appeal No. 97-0331
Application 08/359,562
examiner feels that the end of the paddle of MALM shown
in figure 1 and above the forearm of the swimmer is at
a point near the elbow. [Page 9.]
While we agree with the examiner that the paddle of Malm
(when used in the manner depicted in Fig. 1) has the capability
of being pivoted such that the end thereof will bear against the
forearm of the user, it is readily apparent that the end of the
paddle will bear against the user’s forearm at a point a short
distance above the wrist. While we appreciate the various
dictionary definitions cited by the examiner, we must point out
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). Instead, 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,
1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990), Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845
F.2d 981, 986, 6 USPQ2d 1601, 1604 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Here, viewing Fig. 1 of the appellant's drawing, it is readily
apparent that the end of the paddle bears against the forearm of
the user a very short distance from the elbow and the
specification on page 8 states that the fact that the end of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007