Appeal No. 2002-1067
Application No. 09/358,666
negate the meaning of the word it modifies. The use of the
modifier “substantially” in the context of appellants’ claims, we
think, was intended to allow for irregular deviations from a
perfectly cylindrical roller surface and not to broaden the scope
of “cylindrical” to encompass rollers that are intentionally
provided with tapered or beveled surfaces that are distinctly not
cylindrical by design.3 Arvin Industries, Inc. v. Berns Air King
Corp., 525 F.2d 182, 185, 188 USPQ 49, 51 (7th Cir. 1975). See
also Amhil Enterprises, Ltd. v. Wawa, Inc., 81 F.3d 1554, 1562,
38 USPQ2d 1471, 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (In view of specification,
prosecution history, and prior art, “substantially vertical face”
in the patent’s claim must be construed as the same as or very
close to “vertical face”). For this reason, we agree with
appellants that Wegner’s work rolls 30, 31 having a taper of 2°
or more are not “substantially cylindrical” as claimed.
In light of the foregoing, we shall not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 24 as being anticipated by Wegner.
3
3Our position in this regard is supported by appellants’
arguments in the revised main brief and the reply brief. See,
for example, page 2, lines 13-16, of the reply brief.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007