Appeal No. 1999-0098
Application No. 08/328,443
appellant here did not define the expression "integrally
attached" in the specification, it will be given its broadest
reasonable interpretation. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Looking at the operation of the Tanguy apparatus, after
the pin 1 is in place, the guide member 15 is pushed into the
bore of the pin until the ball detent 20 snaps into the hole
21; then, after the cortical has been drilled, the guide
member is removed, presumably by pulling on handle 24 so that
ball 20 is disengaged from hole 21. It is clear that when the
ball detent 20 is engaged with hole 21, the guide member 15 is
attached to nail 1. However, in an apparatus of this type,
where two members are attached together by a detent for part
of the operation, but are disengaged during the remainder of
the operation, we do not consider it to be a reasonable
interpretation to say that the two members are "integrally"
attached. In this regard we note the case of In re Larson,
340 F.2d 965, 967-68, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965), cited in
appellant’s reply brief, in which the Court, citing a
dictionary definition of "integral," agreed that
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007