Appeal No. 2003-0087 4
Application No. 09/512,164
whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the
written description contained in the applicant’s specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In the present case, it is important to
determine the meaning of the terminology “spring applied brake assembly” appearing in
the preamble of each of the appealed claims. Consistent with appellants’ specification,
and in particular the paragraph bridging pages 10 and 11 thereof, we consider the
terminology “spring applied brake assembly” as used by appellants in the appealed claims
to refer to an actuator per se (as shown, for example, in appellants’ Figure 4) as opposed
to an actuator in combination with such additional structure as may be necessary to bring
about the braking of a vehicle. With this in mind, we turn to claim 1.
Claim 1 is directed to “[a] spring applied brake assembly” (i.e., an actuator) “for a
railway vehicle braking system . . . .” The spring applied brake assembly is said to
comprise (a) a casing “engagable with” the railway vehicle braking system, (b) a piston
assembly positioned within the casing, (c) a piston rod secured to the piston assembly, (d)
a spring member disposed in the casing, and (e) an attachment means “for associating”
said piston with a force transfer lever of the railway vehicle braking system. Our analysis
of claim 1 leads us to conclude that it is directed to an actuator per se.
Fontaine, the examiner’s primary reference in each of the rejections, is directed to
an automatic parking or emergency brake system for motor vehicles. Fontaine’s
specification (col. 1, lines 48-57) states that an objective of the invention is to provide a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007