Appeal No. 2003-1640
Application 09/634,692
rudder blade 2 as it attaches the same to the boat, while bar support 8 is attached to the aft end of
the rudder blade, thus overlaying and supported by the top of the rudder blade. Nonetheless, the
examiner contends that the structure of bar support 8 is a “rudder housing” as claimed, because it
appears to satisfy other claim limitations, and “claim 1 does not define the rudder housing as
supporting a rudder blade and does not define the rudder housing as linking the rudder blade to
the watercraft” (answer, pages 7-9). Appellant argues that rudder-blade support 4 is a “rudder
housing” because Pelletier’s “rudder assembly could not even be attachable to a watercraft absent
its rudder-blade support” (brief, page 7).
In interpreting a claim term, we will give the term its ordinary meaning unless another
meaning is intended by appellant as established in the written description in the specification.
See, e.g., Morris, supra; Zletz, supra. While appellant does not provide an express definition of
the term “rudder housing” in the written description in the specification, we find that one of
ordinary skill in this art would determine from the specification figures and disclosure that we
refer to above, that a “rudder housing” must support the rudder and attach it to the watercraft.
This apparent usage in the specification comports with the common, dictionary meaning of the
term “housing” in context: “2. a. Something that covers, protects, or supports. b. A frame,
bracket, or box for holding or protecting a mechanical part . . . .” The American Heritage
Dictionary, Second College Edition 625 (Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1982).
Thus, based on our interpretation of the term “rudder housing” in light of the written
description in the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in this art, it is
apparent to us that it is rudder-blade support 4 of Pelletier with which the limitations of the
“rudder housing” specified in appealed claim 1 must be compared. In doing so, we agree with
appellants that the reference does not describe the claimed rudder assembly encompassed by
appealed claim 1 within the meaning of § 102(b), and accordingly, we reverse the ground of
rejection of appealed claims 1, 3 and 8 under this statutory provision.
The dispositive issue with respect to the ground of rejection under § 102(b) based on
Carré is whether the reference describes a foot operated steering assembly which has a “ first toe
control pivotally linked to the first foot brace,” which limitation is present in independent claims
16 and 25. We determine that the quoted claim language considered in light of the written
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007