Appeal No. 1999-1744
Application No. 08/743,521
319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)), it is also
well settled that 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, 986, 6 USPQ2d 1601,
1604 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016,
194 USPQ 187, 194 (CCPA 1977). Here, we think the examiner’s
reading of the claim terminology calling for a forked end and
a J-shaped portion that are contained in a common plane on the
end elements 17 and 18 is strained and unreasonable.
For these reasons, we find nothing in the disclosure of
Cripps that corresponds to the claimed forked end and J-shaped
portion contained in a common plane. Moreover, the examiner
does not contend, and it is not apparent to us, that Cripps
alone (in the case of claims 12 and 13), or Cripps in
combination with Lawrence (in the case of claims 2, 4, 10 and
11) suggests modifying the end portion of Cripps to arrive at
this claimed configuration. Accordingly, we will not sustain
either of the standing rejections of the appealed claims.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007