Appeal No. 97-4208
Application 08/682,393
pawl element 30 from which teeth 26 and 36, respectively,
project. However, as the examiner points out, Main '025
discloses at column 5, lines 18 to 20, that the wrench may use
straight gears as opposed to bevel gears. If the straight gears
suggested by Main '025 were used, then the surfaces of driver
member 18 and pawl element 30 from which the gear teeth 26, 36,
extend would be
flat, and would correspond to the flat surfaces called for by
parts (a) and (b) of claim 1.
Appellant’s other argument with regard to claim 1 is
that Main '025 does not disclose the “nibs” recited in part (b).
The examiner takes the position that these are readable on the
teeth 36 of Main’s pawl 32.
It is fundamental that, during prosecution before the
PTO, the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their
terms reasonably allow, In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d
1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989), and that
as an initial matter, the PTO applies to the
verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest
reasonable meaning of the words in their
ordinary usage as they would be understood by
one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into
account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded
by the written description contained in the
applicant’s specification.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007