Appeal No. 2001-0533
Application No. 09/322,043
central longitudinal axis thereof, leaving an opening for
passage of contents from one bottle to the other. According
to the examiner, the shoulder portion 17 responds structurally
to the "central divider" recited in claim 1.
Appellants argue that the shoulder portion 17, by virtue
of its central opening therein, is not a "divider forming
diametrically opposed cavities in the ends thereof" (brief,
pp. 8-9). For the reasons set forth below, we agree with
appellants.
It is axiomatic that, in proceedings before the PTO,
claims in an application are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification,
and that claim language should be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
skill in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
As explained on page 4 of appellants' specification,
appellants' invention comprises a connector 10 having "a solid
rigid substantially cylindrical body with diametrically
opposed open cavities 30 in the ends thereof." When viewed in
light of this disclosure on page 4 of the specification, it is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007