Appeal No. 2002-1050
Application 09/425,505
cutting path) that ensures that the actual cutting path
coincides with the desired cutting path.
. . . The goal of the claimed invention, in part,
is not to straighten the blade as in Gerber ‘037, but
rather to direct the cutting apparatus along a
directional offset so that the tip of the bent blade
moves along the desired cutting path [main brief, page
4].
To emphasize their point, the appellants further maintain
that
Gerber ‘037 is not solving the directional problem by
moving the blade in an offset direction, but rather by
rotating the orientation of the reciprocating cutting
blade about its 2-axis.
. . .
. . . [T]he last step of claim 1 generally recites
using directional offsets to affect the path of the
“cutting tool”. In other words, it is the entire
cutting tool that is moved in an offset direction.
Moving the entire cutting tool in an offset direction
includes its central vertical axis [reply brief, pages
1 and 2].
During patent examination claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the underlying
specification without reading limitations from the specification
into the claims. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ
541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969). The appellants’ specification (see page
7) does indicate that the cutting tool is moved along a path that
is offset from the desired cutting path in a direction opposite
to an offset direction otherwise caused by deflection forces
exerted on the cutting tool tip to thereby compensate for the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007