Appeal No. 1997-1374
Application No. 08/415,101
The Examiner’s analysis is plausible, but different than
envisioned by Appellants’ disclosure. Both Appellants and the
Examiner have presented different and viable interpretations
of the ordinary usage of the term "in unison". "However,
words of ordinary usage must nonetheless be construed in the
context of the patent documents. Thus the court must
determine how a person of experience in the field of this
invention would, upon reading the patent documents, understand
the words used to define the invention." Toro Co. v. White
Consolidated Industries, Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1299, 53 USPQ2d
1065, 1067 (CAFC 1999). Thus, we give deference to
Appellants’ use of the term "in unison" and find this aspect
of the claimed invention lacking in the Examiner’s rejection.
Accordingly, we find the limitations discussed supra,
found in all independent claims, not taught or reasonably
suggested by the references of record, and we will not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of these claims (claims 1, 9, 15 and
17).
The remaining claims on appeal, all dependent claims,
also contain the above limitations discussed in regard to
-9-9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007