Appeal No. 1998-2129 Page 4
Application No. 08/561,816
As our initial inquiry into a review of the examiner’s
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and § 103(a), we must
analyze the claim language to determine the scope and meaning
of each contested limitation. See Gechter v. Davidson, 116
F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We
give the terms of the appealed claims their ordinary meaning
unless we find that another meaning is intended by appellant.
See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027
(Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d
1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Here, we observe that the claims
on appeal require that a surface of a covering material (claim
18) or the surface of an underlayment material (claims 1-7)
has deposited thereon a plurality of nail tabs. We determine
that the ordinary meaning of the term "tab" as used in
appellant’s claims requires that the tabs have been deposited
in a manner so as to be in contact with the surface of the
covering or underlayment as a "projection, flap or short
strip" on the surface. This interpretation is consistent1
1See the definition of "tab" at page 1176 of Webster’s II
New Riverside University Dictionary, The Riverside Publishing
Company (1984). A copy of that dictionary page is attached to
the decision.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007