Appeal No. 2004-1383
Application No. 09/658,389
319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)(“During
patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as
broadly as their terms reasonably allow.”); In re Yamamoto, 740
F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 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)).
In this case, the examiner found that the specification
does not contain any special definitions for the terms
“imaginary cylinder” and “axis” recited in appealed claim 1.
Absent any special definitions, the examiner concluded that
these terms should be given their broadest reasonable meanings
as they would be understood by one skilled in the relevant art.
(Answer, page 4.) Relying on a dictionary definition, the
examiner determined that the term “cylinder” is not limited to a
right circular cylinder (i.e., a cylinder with two circular
bases) but instead reads on any “‘surface traced by a straight
line moving parallel to a fixed straight line and intersecting a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007