Interference No. 10A
A plain reading of the claim language at issue according to ordinary usage of the
English language requires that there be movement on the part of each cable retaining
member, for they are "supported for movement away from each other ... and toward
each other. . ." (Claim 1). The term "each other" implies mutuality or some form of
reciprocal standing. Tarpill would have us interpret the claim language so broadly that
the concept of mutuality and reciprocal standing is not included in the claim.
That is an unreasonably broad interpretation. Adding the word "relative" before
..movement," as Tarpill apparently would have us do (Tarpill Reply 1, page 4, lines 9-13)
unjustifiably broadens what Bourbeau has claimed. While Bourbeau's claim requires the
two retaining members be supported for movement away from each other to a cable
receiving position and toward each other to a cable retaining position, Tarpill evidently
reads the claim as requiring only that the distance between the two members be decreased
and increased without regard to whether both members move. (1d., page 6, lines I I -12).
That is an improper reading of the claim in that it overlooks the element of
mutuality. The second member must also move. This is not a result of requiring the
members to move with respect to the tool holder, as Tarpill apparently believes (1d., page
3, lines 21-22), but a necessary result of the members moving toward and away from
"each other."
We therefore agree with Bourbeau's position that the device of Nilsson having
the cable retaining means 63, 59 as represented in Figures 5 and 6 functioning as a
stationary anvil to exert counterpressure do not meet these claimed elements. The
stationary anvil is not supported for movement toward and away from the crosspiece 60,
nor between cable receiving and cable retaining positions.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007