Appeal No. 1998-1454 Page 6
Application No. 08/422,840
Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 573-
74 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In the present case, we have reviewed
the appellant's disclosure to help us determine the meaning of
the above-noted terminology.
With regard to the "loose fitting relationship," the
specification, at page 6, states that
[d]ue to its relative size, the socket easily slips
onto the enlarged end 108 of the crankable shaft in
a loose fitting relationship, and were it not for
the locking means 8 the socket would be rotatable
relative to the enlarged shaft end.
Further, claim 1 recites that the engagement member is
engageable with an end of the shaft "in a loose fitting
relationship such that the engagement member may be rotated
relative to the shaft."
From this disclosure, we are of the opinion that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood "loose fitting
relationship" to denote a non-constraining type of engagement
which permits rotation between the end of the shaft and the
engagement member and, accordingly, would have understood the
metes and bounds of this limitation.
As for the "low torque" limitation, the appellant's
specification, at page 7, makes clear that the cranking handle
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007