Appeal No. 1999-1824
Application No. 08/513,835
Reference is made to the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 22 and 25) and the answer
(Paper No. 23) for the respective positions of the appellants and the examiner with regard to
the merits of this rejection.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. For the reasons which follow, we
cannot sustain the examiner's rejection.
Independent claim 9 recites "the notch being located in the at least one end wall adjacent
the central bulge thereof." The only issue in dispute in this appeal relates to the location of the
notch. Thus, it is essential that we fully understand the meaning of "adjacent" as used in claim
9 before addressing the examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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 applicants'
specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007