Appeal No. 2000-1612
Application 08/938,844
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
With regard to the rejection of claim 7 relying on
Bourassa under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), we have reviewed the
applied patent and, like appellant, find no teaching or
disclosure therein of a “removable strap fastener means” as
required in claim 7 on appeal. We share appellant’s view as
expressed in the brief (pages 6-7) that the examiner’s attempt
to read the “removable strap fastener means” of claim 7 on the
plate (21) of Bourassa is entirely untenable. One of ordinary
skill in the art would not reasonably view the plate (21) of
Bourassa as being a strap or “removable strap fastener means”
as that term would be understood from appellant’s
specification. Before the USPTO, when evaluating claim
language during examination of the application, the examiner
is required to give the terminology of the claims its broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification,
and to remember that the claim language cannot be read in a
vacuum, but instead must be read in light of the specification
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007