Appeal No. 2000-0104
Application No. 08/850,647
the structural elements of the claims, [the Cerola container]
is considered to be inherently capable of the claimed
functions.”
In interpreting words in a claim,
the PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed
claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words
in their ordinary usage as they would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into
account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions
or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the applicant’s
specification.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027,
(Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, with regard to the term “mechanical
lock,” the snap-in or friction fit arrangements of Cerola are
certainly mechanical, but we do not consider that either of
them constitutes a “lock,” as that term is used in the
appealed claims, since the claimed “lock” is recited as (a)
“for locking retention of the catalyst member thereto,” and
(b) “for preventing removal of the catalyst member from said
coupler.” Giving the words in phrase (a) “their ordinary and
accustomed meaning” (In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31
USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1992)), the verb “lock” is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007