Appeal No. 98-0584
Application 08/238,948
"proximity detector." In our view the examiner is attempting
to expand the meaning of "proximity detector" beyond all
reason. It is well settled that terms in a claim should be
construed in a manner consistent with the specification and
construed as those skilled in the art would construe them (see
In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir.
1990), Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 986,
6 USPQ2d 1601, 1604 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Sneed, 710 F.2d
1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). As we have
noted above with respect to the § 112 rejection, the appellant
on page 14 of the specification the appellant has described
the nature of the proximity detector wherein the relative
position of a permanent magnet and reed switch is such that
the intensity of the magnetic field of permanent magnet is
sufficient to move the reed switch from the open position to
the closed position. In Hewitt, however, a locking rod 82 is
secured to a pivotally mounted housing 28 which in turn
indirectly supports a guard 8. The locking rod is provided
with a dog 94 on one end thereof which actuates a contact
switch (i.e., a tang 108 on a stationary micro switch 98) when
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007