Appeal No. 2001-0844 Page 3
Application No. 08/736,330
claims, to the applied prior art reference to Luckevich, and
to the respective positions articulated by the appellant and
the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e), it must be shown that each element of the claim is
found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
The examiner in the answer (p. 3) and the appellant in
the brief (pp. 8-9) disagree as to the correct meaning that
should be accorded the phrase "partial braking" as used in
claims 1 and 5. In our view, it is well settled that during
examination a phrase in a claim must be interpreted as broadly
as its terms reasonably allow unless the appellant has
provided a clear definition in the
specification. See Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam,
Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477, 45 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007