Appeal No. 2004-1150
Application No. 09/924,490
overlapping edges at the joint lines and that it would not have
been obvious to replace these overlapping joints with butt joints,
this argument is directed to the claim limitations “butt welding”
(e.g., claim 1, as in “friction stir butt welding”) and “butt
welded” (e.g., claim 13, as in “friction stir butt welded joint”).
In proceeding 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).
In the present case, appellants’ specification provides the
following definition for the term “butt welding”: “‘Butt welding’
as used herein is intended to include the process of welding
together at least two components having edges or surfaces in
abutment with each other, whether the components are generally co-
planar in the region of abutment or not” (page 4, lines 16-20;
emphasis added). Given this broad definition of what constitutes
“butt welding” for purposes of the present application, any of the
joints shown in Figures 13-15 of Ellzey between the sheets A and B
constitute a “butt weld” or a joint formed by “butt welding.”
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007