Ex parte JARZYNA - Page 5




               Appeal No. 1999-0628                                                                       Page 5                
               Application No. 08/806,503                                                                                       


                      In proceedings before it, the PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the                      
               broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood                     
               by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of                        
               definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the                        
               applicant's specification.  In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed.                        
               Cir. 1997).                                                                                                      
                      In light of the appellant's underlying disclosure, we read the words "only one set of                     
               splines adapted to connect with a yoke and formed on the end thereof" of the claims together so                  
               as to denote that the shaft has only one set of splines which are "adapted to connect with a yoke                
               and formed on the end thereof."  We do not interpret this language as precluding the output                      
               shaft having another set of splines at a location thereon different from "the end thereof" which                 
               are not adapted to connect with a yoke or the housing or casing having another yoke which is                     
               not mounted on the one set of splines.5                                                                          
                      In rejecting claims 1-3, 6-9, 12 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable                       
               over Keese in view of Arbus, the examiner reads the claimed "output shaft" on the shaft (324)                    
               of Keese.  Noting that the splined outer end portion of the shaft (324) is shown extending into                  
               the bearing cage (310) of the auxiliary reduction gear housing (300) and, thus, is not                           

                      5If given the latter, more limited interpretation, the claims as now amended would appear to lack adequate
               descriptive support as required by the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.  Specifically, the appellant's specification
               and drawings (note the "fragmentary" views; specification, pages 2-3) disclose details only of the output end of the
               housing or casing and output shaft.  Since the upstream portions of the shaft and housings or casings are neither
               illustrated nor described, the presence or absence of additional splines thereon cannot be determined.           







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

Last modified: November 3, 2007