Appeal No. 2002-0911 Page 7
Application No. 09/272,115
claims 1 and 5 to mean that the lifter is fully contained or mounted on the mobile crane
itself.
The terminology “bodily movable with” is not used in appellants’ specification
outside of the claims, much less expressly assigned a special definition therein. Thus,
in interpreting the claims, this terminology is given its broadest meaning in its ordinary
usage. The definition offered by appellants on page 11 of their reply brief, namely, that
it means that two related structures are “capable of being moved as a unit” appears
reasonable to us and consistent with the ordinary usage of these terms. We therefore
accept appellants’ definition and shall use it in interpreting the claims. We note,
however, that “bodily movable with” merely requires that the lifter be capable of being
moved as a unit with the base section; it does not require that each and every time one
of the lifter and base section moves the other necessarily also moves in the same
manner and over the same path. Rather, all that is required is that the lifter is capable
of being moved as a unit with the base section under some set of circumstances.
For the foregoing reasons, it is our opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art
would be able to understand the meaning of the claim terminology alluded to by the
examiner so as to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter,
thereby fulfilling the definiteness requirement of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112. Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9 under the second paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is reversed.
The prior art rejections
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007