Appeal No. 2005-1279
Application No. 09/924,285 4
section in a plane containing the longitudinal axis of the
element. The appellants counter that the examiner’s position is
inconsistent with their specification and repugnant to the
ordinary meaning of the term “cross-section,” i.e., “[a] section
formed by a plane cutting through an object, usually at right
angles to an axis” (main brief, page 4).2
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, , 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Pistons of the sort disclosed by the appellants and by
Nennecker and Gumery are elongated elements which move in the
direction of their longitudinal axes. Within this context, one
of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the recitation
in independent claims 1, 12 and 22 of a piston which is
substantially rectilinear in cross-section to mean a piston which
has a substantially rectilinear cross-section perpendicular to
its longitudinal axis. This interpretation is consistent with
2 The appellants cite dictionary.com as the source for this
definition of “cross-section.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007