Appeal No. 2004-2304
Application No. 09/886,735
1 does not recite any structure regarding the ski mode
(e.g., converting the structure into a ski by interchanging
a foot plate). Claim 8 recites “a flat surface of the
deck” when in ski mode, but it is not disputed that a
surface of the deck in Ramboz has a flat surface (e.g., fin
41 has a flat surface). Claim 12 similarly recites “a
smooth flat bottom surface of the deck”.
Hence, we agree with the examiner’s explanation of the
teachings of Ramboz regarding the combination snowshoe and
ski mode functions. The outer side fin 41 of Ramboz allows
for a “sliding bearing surface”.1 A ski in the ski mode
also provides for a “sliding bearing surface”.
Appellants emphasize the claimed recitation, found in
the preamble, of a “combination snowshoe and ski that
operates in both a snowshoe mode and a ski mode” as being
distinguishable from the teachings of Ramboz. However,
each of claims 1, 8, and 12, does not recite structure that
imparts the more narrow interpretation that appellants wish
imparted to these claims. For example, none of the claims
recite an interchanging foot plate that converts the
structure from a snowshoe (imparting one structure) to a
ski (imparting a different structure). We note that in
determining the patentability of claims, the PTO gives
claim language its “broadest reasonable interpretation”
consistent with the specification and claims. In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). Appellants’ desired
interpretation of the claims is simply narrower than such a
reasonable interpretation.
1 See claim 1, for example, of Ramboz. See also the examiner’s position
on pages 3, 4, and 6-8 of the answer.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007