Appeal No. 1999-2660 Page 4
Application No. 08/850,313
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 applicant's
specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Each of the appellants' claims requires, inter alia, a pedestal being a single bar having a
first end portion, a second end portion and a middle portion, wherein the first end portion is
adapted to interlace with a second end portion of an adjacent computer system tower unit.
Based on the ordinary and customary usage of these terms, we understand a "bar" to be a piece
of material that is longer than it is broad or wide and "to interlace" as to unite parts by passing
over and under each other or to weave together.2
Our understanding of "bar" is consistent with the bar (110 or 160) illustrated in the
appellants' drawings and described in the appellants' specification. In particular, the drawings
illustrate a bar (110 or 160) which is considerably longer than it is wide and the appellants'
specification (pages 4 and 5) describes the pedestal (110 or 160) as spanning the base of the
tower unit in a direction transverse to the depth of the tower unit (100) and being a single bar3
2 Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition (Simon & Schuster, Inc. 1988).
3This would appear to describe the direction in which the longer dimension is intended to extend.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007