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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007