Appeal No. 2001-1380
Application No. 09/138,998
presented in means plus function language, so we need not refer
to the specification for a description of the covered structure
and its equivalents. The claimed term, “lid,” is clear on its
face and clearly covers any type of cover, whether as a closure
for a top opening or a closure for a front opening. Appellants
chose the term in drafting the claims and, in so choosing, for
whatever reason, decided on giving the claim a broader scope.
They could easily have limited the claimed “lid” to a lid for
covering a top opening of a housing but chose not to do so.
Accordingly, we will not construe the broad claim language,
“lid,” as something narrower in scope than what the plain
language of the claim suggests.
Having decided that the lid of Akutagawa, which covers a
front opening, meets the broadly claimed “lid” of claims 3 and 4,
we note that Akutagawa’s lid operates as set forth in claims 3
and 4 since, as Figures 1-4 of Akutagawa show, lid 11 is moved
relative to the main body from a closed position (e.g., Figure 1)
over a first distance in a first linear direction (the lid is
first pulled straight out from the main body) only, and then
subsequently rotated relative to the main body over a second
distance in a first rotational direction (e.g., see Figure 2).
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007