Appeal No. 1997-3482
Application No. 08/431,779
In response, Appellants attack (Brief, page 8) the
Examiner’s characterization of Weavers’ opening 56 and mating
extension 60 as a “groove” and “rib,” respectively. After
careful review of the Weavers’ reference in light of the
arguments of record, we are in agreement with the Examiner’s
position as stated in the Answer. In our view, the Examiner’s
interpretation of “groove” and “rib,” buttressed by the
dictionary definitions supplied by the Examiner, is in
accordance with the accepted meaning of those terms. As
pointed out by the Examiner (Supplemental Answer, page 4),
Appellants have provided no definition in the specification
for the terms in question that would lead to an interpretation
other than their plain accepted meaning. When not defined in
the specification, the words of a claim must be given their
plain meaning, i.e., they must be read as they would be
interpreted by those of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
We also find Appellants’ arguments directed to the
alleged frictional fit of Weavers’ rib tab 60 into rib chamber
56 to be unpersuasive. We agree with the Examiner that, in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007