Appeal No. 1999-2660 Page 5
Application No. 08/850,313
having two ends (130 or 170, 180) extending outwardly from opposite sides of the tower unit
(100).
As for the term "interlace," as seen in Figure 3B, the two end portions (130) of the first
embodiment are each angled twice from the middle portion to form a generally S-shape in
opposite directions such that, when the middle portions of two such pedestals are aligned, the
end portions weave around one another or intertwine to permit the pedestals to be effectively
overlapped. Similarly, in the second embodiment, as seen in Figure 6B, one end portion (180)
comprises two branches which form a fork or double end adapted to surround the other end
portion (170) of an adjacent pedestal when the middle portions of two such pedestals are
aligned. While the end portions of the pedestals illustrated in Figures 3B and 6B also pass over
and under one another, by virtue of a downward angle, we note that the appellants'
specification also contemplates planar end portions (specification, pages 4 and 5). In a planar
configuration, the end portions, of course, would not pass over and under one another but
would still weave laterally about one another so as to be intertwined. Therefore, the term
"interlace," when read in light of the appellants' specification, appears to require a weaving or
intertwinement but does not appear to specifically require a passage over and under.
Accordingly, consistent with the appellants' specification, we interpret "a single bar" as
used in the appellants' claims as a single piece of material that is longer than it is broad or
wide, and the claim terminology "adapted to interlace" as requiring structure which permits the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007