Appeal No. 1998-2833
Application No. 08/585,403
portion of the monofilaments of the bundle and maintaining the
abrasive tips in relation to each other as the abrasive
working face of the honing tool" (underlining added for
emphasis). As to claim 19, the appellants argue that if the
teachings of the references were modified by substituting
foamed elastomer for the cyanoacrylate adhesive, the resulting
structure would lack the “layer of adhesive” called for in
claim 19.
We do not agree with the examiner’s position. While it
is well settled that the claims in a patent application are to
be given their broadest reasonable interpretation during
prosecution
of a patent application, this interpretation, in addition to
being reasonable, must also be consistent with the
specification
(see, e.g., In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320,
1322
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007