Appeal No. 2004-1168
Application 09/884,518
states, “[t]he terms used in the claims bear a ‘heavy presumption’ that they mean what
they say and have the ordinary meaning that would be attributed to those words by
persons skilled in the relevant art.” Tex. Digital Sys. Inc. v. Telegenix Inc., 308 F.3d
1193, 1202, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1058
(2003).
Appellant’s claim 1 recites “an accessory housing having a substantially flat
surface for sliding across a wall surface and an attachment member for detachably
mounting the accessory housing to the drill housing.” (emphasis added).
Appellant argues that Hubscher fails to teach the limitation “a substantially flat
surface” as recited in Appellant’s claim 1. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s
interpretation that Hubscher’s second end 15 is the substantially flat surface is
erroneous since Hubscher’s specification does not describe so, and since the end 15 is
shown only in one-dimensional cutaway side view, thus, it is impossible from the angle
shown to determine whether the surface is flat. See pages 4 and 5 of the brief.
The Examiner responds that Hubscher shows a cross-section which is “flat” at
least in the vertical direction, and moreover, Hubscher’s accessory is designed to cut
holes in a flat wall, thus, a protruding surface at 15 on Hubscher’s accessory would only
interfere in the operation of such a device. See page 5 of the answer.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007