Appeal No. 2002-1720 Page 4
Application No. 09/100,494
such as a rock or other weighty debris. Each groove has a front wall 43 adjacent the
pin which is curved and outwardly flaring so that “when the pin 30 is released, tending,
because of its resilience, to rebound in the forward direction through an angle ", the pin
bends about the curved front wall 43 with the bending, again, being distributed along
the length dimension of the pin for avoidance of concentrated stress” (column 3, line 65,
to column 4, line 2).
According to the examiner, it would have been obvious to “alternatively use and
replace Lee’s second blade means [blades 121] with the one taught by Fisher, as an
alternative blade means for achieving the same objective of more effectively cutting
vegetation” (answer, page 4). Appellant argues that, even if Lee were modified to
replace the blades 121 with the pins taught by Fisher, the invention recited in claim 11
would not result, as Fisher’s pins 30 are not “nails” as called for in claim 11.
We agree with the appellant that Fisher’s pins 30 are not “nails” as one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand them in light of appellant’s underlying
disclosure. While it is true that the claims in a patent application are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during prosecution
of a patent application (see, for example, In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d
1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)), it is also well settled that terms in a claim should be
construed as those skilled in the art would construe them (see Specialty Composites v.
Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 986, 6 USPQ2d 1601, 1604 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007