Interference No. 104,693
Preputnick v. Provericher
module and something on the second half-module be complementary
to and engage each other. In our view, it does.
Note that the recitation of the feature uses the term
ęportions." Nothing has been defined in claim 17 to which a
fastening means can reasonably be deemed as a portion, except the
first and the second half-module. It makes no sense for
ęportions" to refer to something that is not yet defined, and the
closest items in the claim to the term 'fastening portions" in
the recitation are the first and second half-modules. Indeed,
ęsaid first and second half-modules" is a part of the same
recitation and is separated from 'engaging complementary
fastening portions" by only two words. The sentence structure of
the recitation, according to ordinary English, is that the term
'fastening portions" modifies 'first and second half-modules."
Provencher's specification also does not provide any basis to say
that the fastening portions are not a part of the first and
second half-modules. Thus, in this circumstance, the only
reasonable interpretation is that the fastening portions are
located on the first and second half-modules. Additionally, the
requirement that the fastening portions are complementary and
engaged for securing the first and second half-modules together
means there is direct engagement between the fastening portions.
If there is no direct engagement between fastening portions, the
20 -
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007