Appeal No. 1999-0195
Application 08/507,424
contends that “[t]he rotational movements of the blocking
means in both Blunden and Cone provide a ‘substantially
linear’ movement ‘relative’ to a carriage to the broad degree
claimed” (answer, page 4).
Claims in a patent application are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification during prosecution of a patent application
(see In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir.
1989)). Moreover, terms in a claim should be construed as
those skilled in the art would construe them (see Specialty
Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 6 USPQ2d 1601 (Fed.
Cir. 1988) and In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 194 USPQ 187
(CCPA 1977)). Here, the examiner’s position that the chock
bar 62 of Blunden and the chock means 27, 29 of Cone, each of
which pivot in a horizontal plane through an arch of about
90E, engage in “substantially linear movement” in the course
of being deployed is simply unreasonable. We can think of no
circumstances under which an artisan, consistent with the
appellants’ specification, would construe the movement of
Blunden’s or Cone’s blocking means as corresponding to the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007