Appeal No. 1999-0074
Application No. 08/401,347
interpretation, consistent with the specification. In re
Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
The dictionary contains several definitions of the word1
“unitary” consistent with appellant’s specification, and as
normally applied in a structural sense, we consider that
“unitary” as applied in the present application connotes a
structure “having the character of a unit; not divided or
discontinuous,” which is a dictionary definition of that term.
Based on the above interpretation of the term “unitary”
in appealed claims 1 and 16, it follows that we do not agree
with the examiner’s view that clamping plates 34, 36, 38, and
40 of Ivy constitute a showing of a “unitary” torque plate.
Moreover, we are aware of no teaching or inference in either
Jackson or Ivy, and the examiner has directed us to no such
teaching or disclosure supporting an inference, which would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that Ivy’s
clamping plates 34, 36, 38, and 40 be so constructed.
Further, Jackson provides no disclosure whatsoever concerning
the use of a torque plate in mating relationship with the
Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1971).1
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007