Appeal No. 1999-0074
Application No. 08/401,347
38, 40, and thereby arrive at the subject matter of claims 1
and 16.
Having carefully considered the examiner’s position in
light of the appealed claims, the teachings of the applied
references, and appellant’s arguments, we conclude that the
examiner’s position is not sound and that, accordingly, the
standing rejection of the appealed claims should not be
sustained.
As a preliminary matter, we must first consider the
proper meaning to be given the term “unitary” used in
appellant’s claims to describe the construction of the header
flange 36 extending about the perimeter of the radiator core,
the tank flange 38 extending about the perimeter of the tank,
and the torque plates 44 and 46 disposed in mating
relationship with the tank flange and header flange,
respectively. In general, words in a claim will be given
their ordinary and accustomed meaning, unless it appears that
the inventor used them differently, Envirotech Corp. v. Al
George, Inc. 730 F.2d 753, 759, 221 USPQ 473, 477 (Fed. Cir.
1984), and a claim will be given its broadest reasonable
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007