Appeal No. 2005-2543
Application 08/637,894
the supplemental answer, further in view in Locke (supplemental answer, pages 6-7).3
Our consideration of the grounds of rejection requires that we initially interpret
representative appealed independent claim 1 by giving the terms thereof the broadest reasonable
interpretation in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art in light of the written description in the specification, including the drawings, as interpreted
by this person, unless another meaning is intended by appellant as established in the written
description of the specification, and without reading into the claims any limitation or particular
embodiment disclosed in the specification. See, e.g., In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55,
44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320,
1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The plain language of claim 1 encompasses a drain plunger comprising at
least, among other limitations, drain hole sealing rings comprising at least the specified three
sealing rings. We note here that the open-ended term “comprising” used in transition and in the
body of the claim opens the claim to include drain plungers having any manner of additional
materials and elements. See, e.g., Vehicular Technologies Corp. v. Titan Wheel Int’l Inc.,
212 F.3d 1377, 1383, 54 USPQ2d 1841, 1845 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679,
686-87, 210 USPQ 795, 802-03 (CCPA 1981).
The first or upper sealing ring is annular, curved, depending from the lowermost portion
of the bellows and cooperates with that part of the bellows to form a first drain seal. The at least
curved ring depends from, that is, hangs down from, the lower most portion of the bellows in a
manner such that this arrangement forms an air-tight seal with a drain hole, and encompasses the
structure shown by bellows 22 bottom portion 30 of pleats 34 and top seal 32 in specification
Fig. 3 (specification, page 6, ll. 25-26, and page 8, ll. 5-12). We determine that one of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize from the structure shown in specification Fig. 3 that the term
“depending from” is used in its ordinary, dictionary meaning in context of “[t]o hang down
from.”4
and 10 through 17. Claims 8 and 9 are also of record and have been held by the examiner to be
drawn to allowable subject matter (final action mailed April 9, 2003; page 5).
3 None of the remaining appealed claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Scarella and
Tash in the ground of rejection set forth at pages 5-6 of the supplemental answer.
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007