Appeal No. 2003-0421
Application No. 09/508,793
Appellants argue that Nakanishi fails to teach an eyelet
that “elastically engages” the peripheral groove as required by
claim 6 on appeal (Brief, pages 6, 7, 8 and 9; Reply Brief, pages
1-2).3 Appellants specifically argue that if temple 5 of
Nakanishi were elastic, endpiece 8 would also be elastic which
would make no sense (Brief, page 6). Appellants further argue
that, if the arcuate member 10 elastically engages groove 7, such
engagement would produce an undesired detachment when member 10
comes into contact with a stop (Brief, pages 7-8). Appellants
argue that, if eyelet 10 were elastic, it would be forced out of
groove 7 when its end 10a hits the stop formed by recess 12
(Brief, page 9, citing Figures 6 and 7 of Nakanishi). Finally,
appellants argue that thin wire 10 of Nakanishi is “plastically
deformed” but not elastic, according to the examiner’s own
dictionary definition (Reply Brief, page 2).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. During
prosecution before the examiner, we must give the words of the
claims the broadest reasonable meaning as they are ordinarily
used, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art taking
into account any definitions or enlightenment from the
3
3We refer to and cite from the Reply Brief dated Sep. 23,
2002, Paper No. 18 (which is similar in substance to the Reply
Brief dated June 11, 2002, Paper No. 14).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007