Appeal No. 98-2164 Page 5
Application No. 08/587,931
problem with this, however, is that (a) the projection on the
other side of the drawer would now be on the top and extend
downwardly (rather than upwardly as claimed), (b) the "bottom
surface" 32 would have only a single groove formed therein
(rather than grooves formed therein at the lateral edge
portions as claimed), and (c) there would be no horizontal lip
spaced from the flange so as to define a space therebetween as
expressly claimed. If, on the other hand, the examiner by
stating that "the examiner has interpreted the projection 28a
to be situated in a vertical direction above from [sic] lower
flange 24," is contending that, since the projection 28a is
vertically spaced above lower flange 24 in the orientation
depicted in Fig. 3, it can somehow be considered to "extend
upwardly" from the lower flange 24, then we simply disagree.
Terms in a claim should be construed in a manner consistent
with the specification and construed as those skilled in the
art would 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007