Appeal No. 96-2597
Application No. 08/187,529
Multiform Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477,
45 USPQ2d 1429, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Appellant argues at
page 6 of the brief that Barringer’s straps 44 and 60 "offer
no ‘stabilizer’ function or structure whatsoever insofar as
that term is defined by Appellant." However, appellant does
not identify, nor do we find, where in his disclosure the term
"stabilizer" is defined; therefore, it must be given its
broadest reasonable interpretation.
Appellant argues that Barringer’s straps merely loosely
encircle the user’s body and, in his reply brief, asserts that
they do not conform to dictionary definitions of "stabilize,"
i.e., "Barringer’s device [does not] ‘hold[] steady’ or
‘make[] stable’ (especially against lateral motion)-- [it]
merely provides a sort of dangling support" (reply brief, page
2). We do not agree. Strap 44 supports the frame at the
user’s waist (col. 2, lines 15 and 16) while strap 60, being a
"keeper" (col. 2, lines 25 and 26) prevents the frame from
swinging away from the user (to the user’s right, in Fig. 1).
Even though the straps may be "loose," as appellant argues,
that does not preclude them from acting as stabilizers.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007