Appeal No. 1999-1818 Page 6
Application No. 08/586,806
The appellants do not appear to contest the examiner's position with regard to these
proposed modifications but argue that the proposed combinations would still lack the "biting in
portions" required by claim 1. According to the appellants, it is not only the relationship of
aluminum alloy to steel, but the specifically disclosed welding conditions which produce the
"biting in portions"; the short current supplying time disclosed by the appellants is such that the
aluminum body and steel ball are cooled before they are melted and mixed together, while the
welding conditions of Macura are intended to cause the two metal elements to be melted and
mixed with each other and therefore solidified and bonded together (brief, pages 5 and 6).
In proceedings before it, the PTO applies to the verbiage of 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 appellants'
specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Moreover, absent an express definition in their specification, the fact that appellants can point to
definitions or usages that conform to their interpretation does not make the PTO's definition
unreasonable when the PTO can point to other sources that support its interpretation. Id., 127
F.3d at 1056, 44 USPQ2d at 1029.
While the appellants' specification, on pages 3 and 11, discloses that the welding
process results in the rod body having "biting-in portions" which exhibit an anchoring effect
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007