Appeal No. 2002-1067
Application No. 09/358,666
basis for anticipation since anticipation cannot be predicated on
an ambiguous reference. See In re Turlay, 304 F.2d 893, 899, 134
USPQ 355, 360 (CCPA 1962).
Moreover, we consider that it is improper to interpret the
term “substantially cylindrical” as used in appellants’ claims to
be of such breadth to encompass within its metes and bounds a
work roll like that of Wegner that is intentionally tapered or
beveled at an angle of 2° to 5° (see Wegner, column 13, line 12).
The term “cylindrical” has the universally recognized and
accepted meaning that precludes surfaces that are beveled,
tapered, or frusto-conical.2 This, we assume, is not in dispute.
Further, this is consistent with appellants’ disclosure. See
appellants’ specification, at page 7, lines 12-18 and Figures 5-7
where the roller is described and shown as being cylindrical.
While it is true that “substantially” and other similar words are
sometimes construed liberally to avoid unduly restricting a
patent claim, the imprecision of such a word cannot be allowed to
2
2See Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary
(Riverside Publishing Company, copyright © 1984 by Houghton
Mifflin Company), wherein it is stated that the adjective
“cylindrical” may mean “[h]aving the shape or properties of a
cylinder,” and that the noun “cylinder” may mean “[a] surface
generated by a straight line moving parallel to a fixed straight
line and intersecting a plane curve” or “[t]he part of such a
surface bounded by two parallel planes and the regions of the
planes bounded by the surface.”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007