Appeal No. 2000-1713
Application 09/025,551
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied art, including all of the arguments advanced by both
the examiner and appellants in support of their respective
positions. This review leads us to conclude that the
examiner’s § 103 rejection is not well founded. Accordingly,
we reverse the examiner’s §103 rejection for essentially those
reasons set forth in the Brief and Reply Brief. We add the
following primarily for emphasis and completeness.
It is well settled that application claims, in
proceedings before the USPTO, are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.
In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1983). Thus, we look to appellants’ specification for guidance
in interpreting the claimed language regarding the recitation
of "by deforming" the workpiece or composite.
We observe that on page 42, first paragraph, of the
specification, appellants disclose that the chuck 40 is
deformed in accordance with the height of the vertically-
removable member 44 by suction force (shown in Figure 12). As
a result, the shape of the reference plane of the workpiece 10
fixed on the workpiece holding face 22 of chuck 40 can be
controlled. In the paragraph bridging pages 42-43 of the
specification, the appellants disclose that workpiece 10 is
attracted to chuck 40 under vacuum suction with sufficient
suction force. Further, chuck 40 is strongly attracted to
holder 43 comprising the pre-load shaft under vacuum suction.
In this way, the workpiece 10 is deformed along the shape of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007