Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
section. According to Cragg, Fogarty’s second leg is also not
joined to the anchor section, evidently for the same reason,
and thus there can be no description for a “means for joining
a second leg to said anchor section.” Cragg’s arguments
assume that there must be direct contact between the first leg
and the anchor section and between the second leg and the
anchor section. We see no reason, however, to construe claim
62 of Fogarty’s uninvolved application 08/684,508 so narrowly
as to require direct or immediate contact between the first
and second legs and the anchor section.
Cragg does not contend that Fogarty’s application
08/684,508 sets forth a special definition for the word “join”
that is different from the ordinary meaning of the term. We
understand the word “join” as sufficiently broad to encompass
an indirect connection through an intermediate member. See,
for example, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth
Edition, Copyright © 1999, which defines “join” as follows:
1 a: to put or bring together so as to form a unit .
. . . . b: to connect (as points) by a line c:
ADJOIN 2: to put or bring into close association or
relationship . . . 3: to engage in (battle) 4 a: to
come into the company of . . . b: to associate
oneself with . . .
If the first and second legs in Fogarty’s application
- 56 -
Page: Previous 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007