Appeal No. 2004-1235
Application No. 09/845,643
that a portion of the marker extends from the recess and
facilitates, with indentation 16, removal of the marker from the
recess.” We do not agree.
As is apparent from the specification, the appellant fails
to clearly link the claimed means-plus-function language with the
disclosed recessed cavity, indentation and depth. Compare B.
Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424, 43 USPQ2d
1896, 1899 (Fed. Cir. 1997). One of ordinary skill in the art,
reading the appellant’s specification, can, therefore, reasonably
conclude that the disclosed recessed cavity alone corresponds to
the claimed means-plus-function language. This interpretation is
especially appropriate in this case since the claim language must
be given the broadest reasonable interpretation during the
prosecution of a patent application. Thus, we concur with the
examiner that Giglio, by disclosing a cylindrical ball marker
storage cavity (14) useful for “releasably fixing a ball marker,”
teaches the claimed means-plus-function limitation.
It follows that Giglio would have rendered the subject
matter defined by claims 1, 3, 13 and 16 through 18 obvious
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we affirm
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007