Appeal No. 2005-2180 Page 2
Application No. 10/051,417
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and the claim
language is to be read in view of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54, 44 USPQ2d 1023,
1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed.
Cir. 1989); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983);
In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976). This review of
the specification does not reveal the specific Anormal operating conditions@ for an
internal combustion engine. We note that Appellants have not directed us to specific
portions of the present record which disclose or describe normal operating conditions
for an internal combustion engine. Thus, in resolving the issues of the present
appeal, we determine that the phrase Anormal operating conditions@ applies to any
operating condition of internal combustion engines of varying size from small to large.
Appellants are free to recite features of an apparatus either structurally or
functionally. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971).
However, when describing the invention the inventor must describe it specifically to
avoid the prior art. Appellants argue that Mochizuki fails to teach or suggest the use
of a structural adhesive to bond a valve cover to a cylinder head. Specifically,
Appellants state:
The references [Mochizuki and Santella] either singly or in combination
fail to teach or suggest the use of a structural adhesive to bond a valve
cover to a cylinder head; the use of an adhesive wherein the adhesive
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007