Appeal No. 1998-1188 Page 8
Application No. 08/628,556
independently hinged elements 4 together form a “monolithic”
member.
It is a well-settled maxim of our patent law that, in
proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office, claims
must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, and that the claim language
cannot be read in a vacuum, but instead must be read in light
of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the pertinent art. See In re Sneed, 710
F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). With
that in mind, we understand the word “monolithic” as used in
claim 18 to mean one-piece. This interpretation of the word
“monolithic” is also consistent with the dictionary definition
of the word. Neither the independently hinged elements 4 of2
UK ‘967 nor the independently hinged handles 14 and 15 of Hall
constitute a one-piece member. Thus, we conclude that the
combined teachings of the applied prior art fail to teach or
suggest the claimed subject matter.
2 Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language,
Unabridged, G. & C. Merriam Co., Springfield, MA, 1971 (hereinafter Webster’s)
defines “monolithic” as "constituting one massive undifferentiated whole
exhibiting solid uniformity often without diversity or variability.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007