Appeal No. 2002-0911 Page 6
Application No. 09/272,115
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the
appellants’ specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027
(Fed. Cir. 1997). Moreover, absent an express definition in their specification, the fact
that appellants can point to definitions or usages that conform to their interpretation
does not make the PTO's definition unreasonable when the PTO can point to other
sources that support its interpretation. Id., 127 F.3d at 1056, 44 USPQ2d at 1029.
As for the terminology “self-contained,” the definition “complete in itself” offered
therefor by appellants on page 10 of their brief appears to comport with the usual and
customary use of that terminology. Appellants’ specification further informs us that the
invention is directed to “self-assembly of a traveling crane utilizing a self-contained
lifter” (page 1), that the assembly of the crane is accomplished “with a self-contained
dedicated lifter in the boom base section” without the need for a separate, attendant
crane (page 5), that “the operations can be carried out with a self-contained lifter
permanently mounted in the base section of the boom” (pages 5-6), that hydraulic
cylinder means “are mounted in a self-contained manner within the base boom section”
(page 6), and that a pair of hydraulic cylinders form the lifter and “are self-contained in
the base section” (page 9).
Thus, while appellants’ specification does disclose that the lifter is self-contained
and is permanently mounted in the base section of the boom, it does not set forth a
definition of “self-contained” as meaning completely contained within the boom. Based
on the underlying disclosure as a whole, we understand “self-contained” as used in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007