Appeal No. 97-2911
Application 08/399,836
Third, while it is well settled that terms in a claim are
to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in
proceedings before the PTO, this interpretation must be
consistent with the specification and the 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 Bond,
910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In
re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1983). Here, when the claim limitation calling for “bulbous
portions” positioned near the bridge means to provide
additional ergonomic gripping surfaces is read in light of the
specification, we can think of no circumstances where one of
ordinary skill in the art would regard Engquist’s tapered
transition portions as meeting this limitation.
In light of the foregoing, we shall not sustain the
standing § 103 rejection of claims 3 and 10 as being
unpatentable over Engquist in view of Nakano and Wendling.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007