Appeal No. 98-0592
Application 08/463,168
enclosing the at least one disk and transducer. We agree with
the appellant that it does.
In pertinent part, claim 13 recites: “a cover attached
to said base to form an enclosure for said at least one disk
and said transducer" (Emphasis added). In our view, it is
unreasonable, in this context, to read the word “for” so broad
as to be met by any possible relationship between an enclosure
on the one hand and the disk and the transducer on the other.
That is not consistent with the ordinary and plain reading of
the English language. Of course, if the appellant had
intended the term “for” to take on such an extraordinary
meaning, he can, by specially defining the term in his
specification. However, no such special definition can be
found in the specification. On this record, the examiner has
cited no reasonable basis to construe the claim limitation at
issue so broadly.
On page 19, the specification describes that the shock
watch sensor 111 is housed within the disk drive 10 and has a
transparent cover 115 which is in either the cover 14 or the
base 12 of the disk drive. That is entirely consistent with
reading the claim limitation plainly and straight forwardly so
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007