Appeal No. 2001-0111
Application 09/077,376
circumference” of the claimed backing plate are met by, or
would have been obvious in view of, Goralski’s passageways 40
and their inlet and outlet openings 41 and 42.
The appellant, on the other hand, argues that Goralski’s
passageways 40 do not constitute “gaps” as this term is
defined in the underlying specification, to wit:
an indentation or invagination which is incompletely
surrounded by the material of the object. It would
include therefore configurations in which the
circular periphery of a disk has had a segment . . .
removed or
the configuration obtained by (notionally) moving an
“aperture” until a portion extended beyond the
periphery of the disk [specification page 3].
To reinforce this point, the appellant, noting the definition
on specification page 3 of the term “aperture” as meaning “a
channel or hole passing completely through an object, and is
surrounded on all sides by the material of the object,”
submits that Goralski’s passageways 40 are “apertures” not
“gaps.” The appellant also contends that Goralski would not
have suggested any modification of the passageways 40 which
would transform them into “gaps.”
Words which are defined in the specification must be
given the same meaning when used in a claim. McGill, Inc. v.
John Zink Co., 736 F.2d 666, 674, 221 USPQ 944, 949 (Fed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007