Appeal No. 98-1461 Page 8
Application No. 08/335,153
since Bronstad does not disclose the recited "cutting means."
Specifically, the appellants contend that the claimed "cutting
means" is not readable on the bolts 50 of Bronstad.
The examiner (answer, pp. 6-7) did not find this argument
to be persuasive since the examiner considered the claimed
"cutting means" to be readable on the bolts 50 of Bronstad.
We agree with the appellants that the claimed "cutting
means" is not readable on the bolts 50 of Bronstad. In that
regard, the claimed "cutting means" must be given its broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification,
and must 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 this case, the specification discloses (1) the
cutters are wedge shaped (p. 7), and (2) the cutters slice the
rail 16 with a "shearing" action. In our view, an artisan
would readily recognize the basic difference between cutting
as disclosed in this application and the shredding disclosed
by Bronstad. Accordingly, it is our determination that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007