Appeal No. 2001-0154
Application No. 08/838,266
(Fed. Cir. 1988), it is also well settled that terms in a
claim should be construed as those skilled in the art would
construe them (see Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp., 558
F.2d 1008, 1016, 6 USPQ2d 1601 (CCPA 1977).
In the instant case, the examiner has expanded the
meaning of a curtain beyond the interpretation which would
have been given to the term by a person of ordinary skill in
the art. In this regard, in our view, a curtain extends at
least the full length of a window. The valance disclosed in
Corcoran does not extend the full length of the window. The
valance of Corcoran covers only the top of the window. As
such, the bracket disclosed in Corcoran does not have a
curtain rod adapter shaped to receive the end of a curtain rod
because Corcoran discloses a valance rod not a curtain rod.
Therefore, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 and claims 2 through 6 dependent thereon. We will
likewise not sustain the rejection as it is directed to claim
9 and claim 10 dependent thereon, and claim 11 and claim 12
through 15 dependent thereon, because claims 9 and 11 both
recites “a curtain rod . . . adapted to receive an end of a
curtain rod.”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007