Appeal No. 97-1079
Application 08/562,471
independent claim 1. 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, the appellant's specification
teaches that the supporting frame is provided with a hollow tube
82 and that the U-shaped frame is provided with a main central
support tube 108 that is coaxially received within the hollow
tube 82, which arrangement allows “pivoting of the main support
108 [and hence the U-shaped frame] from the dotted line position
to the solid line position shown in Figure 6" (page 15, lines 20
and 21). In Kummerlin, however, the U-shaped frame 112 is2
mounted between spaced parallel arms 103'. Both the central
portion of the U-shaped frame and the spaced parallel arms are
provided with spaced apertures and a pin 121 is provided which
We observe that in Fig. 5 the portion of the member 108 which is2
illustrated as crossing the side rails 74, 76 of the ladder with hidden or
dashed lines should, instead, be illustrated with solid lines. We also
observe that in Fig. 6 that portion of the U-shaped member which is
illustrated as crossing the side rail 76 of the ladder with solid lines
should, instead, be illustrated with hidden or dashed lines.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007