Appeal No. 2003-0267
Application 09/427,229
limitation in independent claim 9, requiring “a bonding surface
having a plurality of grooves therein.” The examiner (see pages
3 and 4 in the answer) finds that these limitations read on
Jabbari’s locking flanges 200 and 202 and the indentations 208,
210 and 212 therein. The appellants counter that
[a] groove is commonly understood to take the form of an
elongate, channel-like structure, such as those
illustrated in Figs. 2-5, 8 and 9 of the present
specification. For example, one dictionary defines a
groove as “a long narrow furrow or channel.” American
Heritage Dictionary 600 (3rd ed. 1993). Jabbari
discloses only elements 208, 210 and 212 . . . .
These indentations are described by Jabbari in
column 5, lines 63-65 as “molded cutouts, or
indentations” in top and bottom surfaces of an actuator.
Indentations so arranged cannot reasonably be construed
as “grooves,” [brief, page 3].
During patent examination claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the underlying
specification without reading limitations from the specification
into the claims. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ
541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969). The definition of “groove” proffered by
the appellants (“a long narrow furrow or channel”) conforms with
the underlying specification and fairly represents the ordinary
and accustomed meaning of this term. This definition also fairly
describes Jabbari’s indentations 208, 210 and 212, which are
disclosed as having a semi-circular shape of approximately 0.062
inches in diameter or a trapezoidal shape with a height of 0.040
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007