Appeal No. 2005-1716
Application No. 10/200,903
the keeper 16 is the engaging member on the surface of the track)
in the locking position, wherein the keeper is secured to the
track by a fastening means (120) to form a[n] integral
construction and thus causing a solitary track structure”
(answer, page 5). We cannot subscribe to this view.
As both the examiner and the appellant understand, during
examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See
In re Hyatt, 211 F.2d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir.
2000). We agree with the appellant, however, that the above
quoted claim language cannot be reasonably interpreted consistent
with the subject specification as defining Block’s arrangement
wherein hook 92 (i.e., the here claimed “locking surface”)
engages with keeper 16. As correctly explained by the appellant,
patentee’s keeper 16 is secured to the track 8 (e.g., see lines
49-50 in column 6) and thus cannot be regarded as a surface of
the track as the examiner urges.
In this latter regard, it is appropriate to reiterate the
examiner’s previously quoted statement “wherein the keeper is
secured to the track by a fastening means (120) to form a[n]
integral construction and thus causing a solitary track
structure” (answer, page 5). Apparently, the examiner believes
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007