Appeal No. 1999-1063
Application No. 08/402,498
that the shaft 34 in Cox corresponds to the claimed “reel.”
Further, the examiner has determined that the shaft 58 in Cox
is operatively coupled to the shaft 34 such that rotation of
the shaft 58 rotates the shaft 34 to unwind the line.
We cannot support the examiner’s determination. It is
true that when shaft 58 in Cox is rotated by the motor 32,
shaft 34 is also rotated by the motor 32. However, rotation
of the shaft 58 does not cause shaft 34 to rotate as called
for in claim 15. It is axiomatic that, in proceedings before
the PTO, claims in an application are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and that claim language should be read in light
of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548,
218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Consistent with the
underlying specification, we interpret the language “said2
worm gear mechanism operatively coupled to said reel such that
said rotation of the worm gear mechanism rotates the reel to
Appellant’s specification at page 6, for example, teaches that “[t]he2
electric motor 51 turns the worm gear 42 which interacts with the worm wheel
teeth 41a to turn the reel 30, feeding the line 60 from the reel.”
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007