Appeal No. 1998-1807
Application No. 08/090,770
examiner does not, in fact, support the examiner’s position.
It is well established that the 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), Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981,
986, 6 USPQ2d 1601, 1604 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Sneed, 710
F.2d 1544, 1548,
218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). After reviewing
appellants’
specification, it is our determination that a more2
appropriate definition for the term “honing tool” as used in
appellants’ claims is “2: a tool for enlarging holes to
precise tolerances and controlling finishes esp. of internal
cylindrical surfaces by means of a mechanically rotated and
2We are informed at page 1 of appellants’ specification that:
“[h]oning is used to correct hole geometry and also to prepare surfaces
that require a specific finish or scratch pattern. Typical of the latter
are piston bores or liners in internal combustion engines. On such oil
lubricated moving part surfaces it is customary to provide what is known
as a plateau finish. A plateau finish is similar to a conventional
finish, expect that the peaks have been removed or flattened out. The
finish attempts to duplicate the finish after the engine has been broken
in, and removes or smooths out metal that would otherwise be removed by
piston rings.”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007