Appeal No. 1999-1502
Application 08/600,060
interpret the axis in a broad
manner.
We do not agree with the examiner. A limitation in a claim
cannot be read in a vacuum, but rather all elements of a claim
must be read together as a whole, in relation to each other.
In the present case, the “upright-oriented pivot axis” is an
element of the overall combination of elements which together
comprise the claimed free-standing cabinet unit. Thus, in
construing
claim 1, the term “upright-oriented” (i.e., vertically
oriented) must be read in conjunction with the claimed “upward
facing first work surface” and “upward facing second work
surface”; since these surfaces are defined as “upward facing”,
the “upright-oriented pivot axis” must be construed as
extending in the direction in which those surfaces face, in
other words, in a direction perpendicular to those surfaces.
Such an arrangement is not disclosed by De Lisle. If one were
to accept the examiner’s interpretation of the pivot axis of
De Lisle as “upright-oriented”, then, as appellants point out
on page 2 of their reply brief, De Lisle’s first and second
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007