Appeal No. 2003-1395
Application No. 09/497,123
(see the Answer, page 4). Similarly, appellants’ argument that
the examiner cites the space between prongs 21 as a “channel” is
not well taken (Brief, page 5).
Appellants argue that the examiner does not show a top
surface having a channel as expressly recited in claim 1, merely
citing Figure 7 of Biedermann to purportedly show a channel
formed between the teeth 15 that protrude outward from the edge
(Reply Brief, pages 2-3). This argument is not persuasive since
claim 1 on appeal does not require a top surface having a
channel. The end member of claim 1 on appeal comprises a first
portion “with a top surface ... having an edge and a first
channel extending from the edge...”. Claim language, in its
ordinary usage, must be given its broadest reasonable
interpretation during ex parte prosecution, as it would have been
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art when read in light
of the specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44
USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The language quoted above
from claim 1 on appeal does not require a longitudinal channel,
or a channel on the top surface, but merely a channel extending
from an edge of the top surface. A “channel” is formed between
adjacent noses or teeth 15 of Biedermann, with the channel
extending from the edge of ring 12, which is an edge of the top
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007