Appeal No. 2002-0500 Page 7
Application No. 09/258,320
reasonable construction. . . ." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Here, claim 1 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "a thrust
supporter unitary with a bottom face of said frame housing; . . . a shaft supported by
said thrust supporter at an end of said shaft. . . ." The claim does not require that the
thrust supporting portion of the framer support the shaft directly. To the contrary, the
specification discloses that the support is indirect, i.e., via another element.
Specifically, "[r]otary shaft 9 . . . is supported axially by thrust supporter 70 via thrust
sheet 7. . . ." (Spec. at 10 (emphasis added).) Giving the representative claim its
broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require that the bottom face of a
housing support a shaft indirectly or directly.
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. The question of obviousness is
"based on underlying factual determinations including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches
explicitly and inherently. . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386, 59 USPQ2d 1693,
1697(Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ
459, 467 (1966); In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 998, 50 USPQ 1614, 1616 (Fed. Cir.
1999); In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007