Ex parte ISHIUCHI et al. - Page 6

               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