Appeal No. 1996-3880 Page 7
Application No. 08/305,441
The motivation is to view the lead, and to provide a
puzzle.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 4-6) that the claimed
"lateral cut-out exposing a portion of said lead" was not[3]
suggested by the applied prior art. We agree.
While Chapman does teach depressions in a pencil, Chapman
does not teach or suggest that the depth of those depressions
are deep enough to expose a portion of the pencil's lead.
Thus, there is no suggestion in Chapman to modify Richardson
to provide the claimed "lateral cut-out exposing a portion of
said lead."
3Terminology used in claims in an application is to be
given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specification, and that claim language should be read in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544,
1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In applying that
principle to the phrase "lateral cut-out," it is our
determination that it means a piece of the side of the pencil
intermediate its ends has been removed. Thus, the phrase
"lateral cut-out" is not readable on the sharpened point of a
typical wooden pencil.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007