Appeal No. 1998-2037 Application No. 08/642,850 construe them (see 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)). Here, the meaning given by the examiner to the term "two-piece arcuate die plate" is inconsistent with both the appellant's specification and the reference, each of which describes the die plate or board as the element on which the cutting rule is mounted. The rule segments [10] disclosed by de Lanauze are used to form a cutting rule which, in turn, is mounted on a die plate or board. We can think of no circumstances under which the artisan, consistent with the appellant's specification, would construe two interconnected rule segments [10] as disclosed by de Lanauze to correspond to the claimed "two-piece arcuate die plate." In view of the above, we agree with the appellant (brief, pages 8-11) that de Lanauze fails to show the combination of (a) a two-piece arcuate die plate having confrontable edges mounted 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007