Appeal No. 2004-0389 Page 7
Application No. 09/853,339
escalator machine being located in the rise section of the escalator (brief, page 5). In
proceedings before it, the PTO applies to the verbiage of claims the broadest
reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the
applicant's specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027
(Fed. Cir. 1997). Moreover, absent an express definition in their specification, the fact
that appellants can point to definitions or usages that conform to their interpretation
does not make the PTO's definition unreasonable when the PTO can point to other
sources that support its interpretation. Id., 127 F.3d at 1056, 44 USPQ2d at 1029.
Appellants have not defined “escalator machine” in their specification as being limited to
the drive motor and, further, have not disclosed that the drive motor of their invention is
located differently than in conventional escalators. Thus, we interpret an “escalator
machine” as including the conveying plates or steps. As Figure 3 of Gschwendtner
shows the standard and supplementary wall supports flanking the conveying plates of
the escalator, we consider this to meet the limitation “covering[5] an escalator machine”
as called for in claim 1.
5 The term “cover” is understood to mean “to extend over” or “overlay” (Webster's New World
Dictionary, Third College Edition (Simon & Schuster, Inc. 1988) and does not require complete enclosure,
as called for in dependent claim 14.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007