Ex parte BERENDS et al. - Page 6

          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                  


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007