Appeal No. 2004-1228
Application No. 09/813,088
1984)(“The PTO broadly interprets claims during examination of a
patent application since the applicant may ‘amend his claim to
obtain protection commensurate with his actual contribution to
the art.’”)(quoting In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162
USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969)).
Contrary to the appellant’s belief, the present
specification contains no special definition for the term “cuff.”
It is appropriate, therefore, to give the term its ordinary
meaning as would be understood by one skilled in the relevant
art. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 551, copy
attached, defines the term “cuff” as “the part of a glove
covering the wrist and sometimes the forearm” and “something
resembling or likened to a cuff for the wrist (as the ferrule on
a tool handle).” Thus, the examiner’s interpretation (answer,
pages 6-7) of the term “cuff” to encompass Rodgors’s sleeve
portion of the hockey shaft overlying the reduced neck portion of
the blade 24 is reasonable.
Accordingly, we uphold the examiner’s rejection on this
ground.
III. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 2-6 & 26-28
over Rodgors, Kline, & Cecka
Appealed claim 2 recites that the “composite layup is
comprised of a plurality of graphite sheets.” Again, we agree
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007