Ex Parte Ananthanarayanan et al - Page 5




              Appeal No. 2005-0482                                                                  Page 5                
              Application No. 09/875,787                                                                                  


              locking ring and bushing of Hollis, we find nothing in appellants’ specification which                      
              supports such a limited definition.2                                                                        
                     For the foregoing reasons, we find appellants’ arguments that Hollis does not                        
              anticipate independent claim 1 unpersuasive.  The rejection of claim 1, as well as claims                   
              2, 3 and 6 which appellants have grouped therewith (brief, page 4), as being anticipated                    
              by Hollis is sustained.                                                                                     
                     Appellants’ only argument with respect to the rejection of claims 8-10, 13 and 14,                   
              namely, that Hollis lacks a step of installing a retaining ring on the terminal which                       
              longitudinally engages the terminal (brief, page 5), is unpersuasive for the reasons                        
              discussed above.  It follows that the rejection of these claims as being anticipated by                     
              Hollis is also sustained.                                                                                   
                     The rejection of claims 4, 5, 7 and 17 as being anticipated by Hollis, on the other                  
              hand, is not sustained.  There is no indication that the swaging operation described by                     
              Hollis for installing the terminal and locking ring onto the side wall of the battery casing                
              will result in welding or fusing together of the surfaces of the locking ring and terminal as               
              required by these claims.  Hollis refers to the locking ring and terminal as being                          

                     2 In proceedings before it, the USPTO applies to the verbiage of claims the broadest reasonable      
              meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the    
              art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by  
              the written description contained in the applicant's specification.  In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44  
              USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).  Moreover, absent an express definition in their specification, the     
              fact that appellants can point to definitions or usages that conform to their  interpretation does not make 
              the PTO's definition unreasonable when the PTO can  point to other sources that support its interpretation. 
              Id., 127 F.3d at 1056, 44 USPQ2d at 1029.                                                                   







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007