Appeal No. 2001-1493 Page 3
Application No. 09/109,016
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper
No. 11) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to the brief
(Paper No. 10) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. After reviewing all of
the evidence before us, we have determined that none of the examiner’s rejections is
sustainable. Our reasons for these determinations follow.
Claim 10 requires first and second punch out punch heads and corresponding
punch out dies which in cooperation make punch outs in a sheet through which a ring of a
ring binder can pass and at least one cutout punch head and corresponding cutout die
which in cooperation form at least one cutout in a sheet, the punch out punch heads and
cutout punch head being positioned in a substantially collinear orientation. In proceedings
before it, the PTO applies to the verbiage of claims the broadest reasonable meaning of
the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that
may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant's specification. In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In this case,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007