Appeal No. 2003-1144
Application 09/212,343
use in the water would be buoyed upwards “over the chest and back
of the user ... enveloping the trunk of the user,” as set forth
in claim 9 on appeal.
Before the USPTO, when evaluating claim language during
examination of an application, the examiner is required to give
the terminology of the claims its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and to remember
that the claim language cannot be read in a vacuum, but instead
must be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. See
In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1983); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) and In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023,
1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). This the examiner has clearly not done.
The “trunk” of a user in the context of appellant’s invention
refers to that portion of the body of a human being not including
the head and limbs, while “envelop” means to surround or cover
completely. Thus, while appellant’s flotation and exercise device
has opposed end porions which are sized “to be buoyed upward and
over the chest and back of the user” so as to envelop the trunk
of the user, the flotation device of Helt includes opposed end
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007