Appeal No. 2003-1205
Application No. 09/568,406
their entirety. We are not persuaded by this argument.
In prosecution of a patent application, we give words in the
claims their broadest reasonable meaning in their ordinary usage,
taking into account the written description found in the
specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22,
13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). We determine that the
claims on appeal, as reasonably and broadly interpreted, do not
require that their resilient latch portion and complementary
interengaging retaining means be part of a unitary structure of
the claimed outer housing and/or inner housing. As such, we
concur with the examiner that Kotmatsu fully describes the
claimed optical connector within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
art would have recognized those claimed and prior art protrusions
and recesses are at least interchangeable for the purpose of
retaining the inner housing within the outer housing. Al-Site
Corp. v. VSI Int’l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1316, 50 USPQ2d 1161,
1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999)(a prior art element is deemed an equivalent
to the claimed element if one of ordinary skill in the art would
have recognized the interchangeability of the elements involved).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007