Appeal No. 97-1445 Page 6
Application No. 08/202,254
unit with mortar (brief, pages 7 and 8). In response, the
examiner argues:
The expression "joinable" is interpreted as
being capable of joining and the limitation
"said faces of said at least one
curvilinear masonry building unit are
joinable to another masonry building unit
with mortar" does not positively recite the
mortar as a part of the wall corner.
Although the curvilinear unit (102) of
Kaplan [is] joined with other units by
interlocking connections, it is certainly
capable of receiving mortar in the
interlocking connections because the mortar
would further enhance the rigidity of the
wall [answer, pages 6 and 7].
We agree with the examiner that the claims do not
positively recite mortar. During examination, claim
limitations are to be given their broadest reasonable reading
consistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Prater, 415
F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969); In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1983). The limitation "joinable to another masonry building
unit with mortar" (emphasis added) requires only that the side
faces of the building unit be capable of being joined to
another masonry building unit with mortar; it does not require
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007