Appeal No. 2005-0661
Application No. 09/894,480
identical function specified in the claim (pivotably
coupling the actuator to the base) in substantially the
same way (by providing leaves that are transversely
disposed) while producing the same results (pivoting
the actuator about and axis) [answer, page 8].
That Heath’s flexible plate 7 and spring 21 embody “leaves”
is not disputed. As for whether these elements are “transversely
disposed at an angle to one another,” the appellants submit that
the broadest interpretation of the term “transverse”
requires that the elements cross one another. See,
e.g., The American Heritage College Dictionary 1438 (3d
ed. 1993)(“Situated or lying across; crosswise”).
Heath’s elements 7, 21 clearly do not cross one another
[main brief, page 4].
The examiner, while not directly challenging the appellants’
definition of “transverse,” counters that “[s]ince the leaves [7
and 21] of the [Heath] pivot are not disposed in parallel, they
must be transversely disposed at an angle to one another”
(answer, page 6).
During patent examination, the USPTO applies to claim
verbiage 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 specification. In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir.
1997). The ordinary meaning of claim terms may be established by
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007