Appeal No. 98-1028
Application 08/378,809
over McCormick in view of Caveney, the examiner has found that
the tie of McCormick meets all of the above noted limitations
of the independent claims. In particular, the examiner has
found on page 3 of the answer that the transverse grooves 72
of the Figure 6 embodiment of McCormick correspond to the
second set of ratchet
teeth. Appellants contend on page 6 of the brief that the
transverse grooves 72 are not configured to function as
ratchet teeth and therefore do not meet this claim limitation.
Terms in a claim should be interpreted in a manner
consistent with the specification and construed as those
skilled in the art would construe them. In re Bond, 910 F.2d
831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Sneed,
710 F.2d
1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Unlike the
examiner, we do not see that the transverse grooves 72 of
McCormick provide a second set of “ratchet teeth,” as called
for in all of the independent claims, as that term would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The term
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007