Appeal No. 97-3110
Application 08/437,956
attached to the fuel tank.
Appellant’s specification is of no avail in clarifying
the claim language at issue. In fact, the specification
reflects the same ambiguity in that it states on the one hand
that the link arms are pivotally attached to the arm brackets
12 on the fuel tank (see, for example, page 3, lines 33-35)
and on the other hand that the link arms are directly attached
to the fuel tank (see, for example, page 2, lines 2-3). As we
understand counsel’s explanation of the claim language at
issue at the oral hearing, the recitation that the link arms
are directly attached to the tank is used in a selective sense
in that it is intended to exclude the presence of intervening
frame structures, such as the prior art sub-frame 7 in the
Kohira reference, but not brackets such as the arm brackets 12
of appellant’s invention.
While it is true that appellant may be his own
lexicographer, the patent specification nevertheless must
support the definition which is now asserted. See, e.g.,
Jonsson v. The Stanley Works, 903 F.2d 812, 819, 14 USPQ2d
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007