Appeal No. 2005-1716
Application No. 10/200,903
this statement supports his contention that the surface of
Block’s keeper 16 should be considered a surface of the track
vis-á-vis the claim requirement under consideration. This is
erroneous. Even regarding patentee’s keeper and track to be an
integral construction or structure, the fact remains that the
keeper and track are distinct mechanical elements having
unrelated mechanical functions. Therefore, because the keeper
does not constitute a track and does not perform a track
function, it is simply not reasonable or rational to consider the
surface of this keeper to be the surface of a track.
In a further attempt to support his claim interpretation,
the examiner advances the following contention on page 6 of the
answer:
. . . [T]he Appellant argues whether the Examiner gave the
pending claims the broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification. According to the
Appellant’s specification “the door mounting assembly 100
may incorporate any track 102 structure known in the art”
(page 3, paragraph 16, lines 1-2 of Appellant’s
specification). Wherein Block’s track structure is known in
the art, as being displayed by the given patent. Therefore,
using the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specification, one would deduce that the track structure
of Block is consistent with the specification, as it is
disclosed that a cam piece engages with a surface of the
track, where the keeper is a surface that is being possessed
by the track structure in a unitary composition.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007