Appeal No. 2000-0301 Page 7
Application No. 08/690,402
enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be
afforded by the written description contained in the
appellants' specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054,
44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also In re Sneed,
710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). When
this is done, we conclude that the term "crescent-shape" as
used in the claims under appeal means a shape having concave
and convex edges terminating in points. 3
Clearly, the cuffs of Kido are not "substantially
crescent-shaped" or "crescent-shaped" since they are shown to
be "segment-shaped." Moreover, none of the cuffs of Enloe,4
Lawson, Foreman, Igaue or Robertson are "substantially
crescent-shaped" or "crescent-shaped." Thus, the applied
prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed "substantially
crescent-shaped" cuffs or "crescent-shaped" cuffs.
3In reaching this conclusion we have utilized the
definition of "crescent" provided on page 5 of the brief as
well as the appellants use of that term in describing cuffs 10
and 10A (see Figure 1 and pages 7-9 of the specification).
4A segment is the area bounded by a chord and the arc of
a curve subtended by the chord.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007