Appeal No. 2003-1173
Application No. 09/991,855
Contrary to the implication of appellants’ position, the claim does not require that
the “leading edge” as recited in claim 5 must correspond to only the “pointed tip” portion
of a rail shown in Figure 3 of Watanabe. The “leading edge” portion of the rail, for all
that the claim requires, does not distinguish over the lower aspect of the leading edge
that extends to the body, in the orientation shown in Figure 3.
In our view, appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the broad scope
of claim 5. Claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation during
prosecution. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir.
1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re
Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
Appellants argue, similarly, that claim 10 distinguishes over Figure 3 of
Watanabe “[s]ince the leading edge extends to the body....” (Brief at 7.) We are thus
not convinced that Watanabe fails to anticipate claim 10.
Since appellants have not relied on any limitations other than those contained in
claims 5 and 10, we sustain the rejection of claims 5, 6, 9-11, 15, 16, 20, 21, 30-33, and
35-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Watanabe.
Section 102 rejection of claim 70 over Nishimura
Appellants argue that Nishimura fails to anticipate claim 70 because, in the
reference, the leading edge of the rails is “a flat surface. Therefore, the leading edge is
not the narrow part of a V-shaped portion.” (Brief at 8.)
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007