Appeal No. 2004-2384
Application No. 10/161,365
Third, we agree with the examiner’s claim construction that the
“disengageable fasteners” (claim 15) or the “attachment removably
attached” (claim 10; see also similar terms in claim 16) are
inclusive of the “threaded fasteners” taught by Desnoyers. During
ex parte prosecution, claim language must be given its broadest
reasonable meaning consistent with the specification as it would
have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In
re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir.
1997). One of ordinary skill in this art would have clearly
understood that threaded fasteners may be easily “disengaged” or
removed by reversing the threads, such as by a screwdriver.
Appellant’s specification discloses use of at least one “removable
fastener” (e.g., page 2, ll. 24-25), exemplifying bolts with
wingnuts (page 4, ll. 8-13), but teaches that
The use of nuts and bolts to removably secure the
structures together is only an example, any other
suitable means for fastening the cradle frame 22 and/or
ottoman cushion 24 to the frame 20 can be used, i.e. such
as metal brackets, or wood pegs with corresponding holes
and other types of disengageable fastening devices.
(Page 4, ll. 24-28).
Accordingly, we agree with the examiner’s claim construction that
the threaded fasteners taught by Desnoyers would have been
understood by one of ordinary skill in this art as being a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007