Appeal No. 1999-0943
Application 08/906,135
Appellant’s arguments in the brief and reply brief that the “formed of” language in the
claims on appeal is exclusive and therefore precludes a reading of the claimed inner member and
claimed wire respectively on the inner member (11, 16) and wire (20) in Whitfield, are
unpersuasive. In our opinion, the “formed of” language in the claims on appeal does not require
that the inner member be exclusively or entirely formed of a first material (e.g., aluminum), or
that the wire of the claims on appeal be exclusively or entirely formed of a second material (e.g.,
alloy steel). Just as a window, for example, is “formed of” wooden frame members and glass
panes, the inner member of Whitfield is “formed of” the cast iron or steel drum (11) and the layer
(16) of low fusing temperature metal, while the wire (20) in Whitfield is “formed of” a high-
tensile strength steel or alloy steel core (22) and a coating layer of low fusing temperature metal
(24). Thus, when the language of the claims on appeal is given its broadest reasonable
interpretation, we agree with the examiner that the inner member (11, 16) of Whitfield is, at least
in-part, “formed of” a first material at layer (16) and that the wire (20) of Whitfield is, at least in-
part, “formed of” a second material at core (22), and that these first and second materials have
the density and strength relationships set forth in appellant’s claims on appeal.
We likewise agree with the examiner that the wire (20) in Whitfield is “snugly wrapped”
in multiple turns around the exterior surface of the inner member therein as required in claim 1
on appeal and, more particularly, with a tension of at least about twenty-five foot pounds as set
forth in dependent claim 6 on appeal. Note column 4, lines 8-16, of Whitfield, wherein it is
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007