Appeal No. 2006-0028
Application No. 10/435,858
specification states that “[t]he wing-in-ground craft as utilized
in this invention are defined in the international maritime
organization manual, ‘INTERIM GUIDELINES FOR WING-IN-GROUND (WIG)
CRAFT’, December 16, 2002, page 10, under section 4.45.1 and
4.45.2” (pages 1-2), a copy of which is of record. As for
“dangerous goods,” the specification states that “[t]he inventive
method allows for transportation of materials that are currently[ ]2
classified or restricted as dangerous goods under 49 CFR [Code of
Federal Regulations] or IATA DGR [International Air Transport
Association Dangerous Goods Regulations] . . . [which] definition
is what is intended to be the meaning of dangerous goods herein”
(page 3). These definitions also apply to the subject terms as
used in the claim. See McGill, Inc. v. John Zink Co., 736 F.2d
666, 674, 221 USPQ 944, 949 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S.
1037 (1984) (“[w]ords which were defined in the specification must
be given the same meaning when used in a claim”). The examiner has
failed to point out why a person of ordinary skill in the art would
2 We understand the word “currently” to mean as of the date the instant application was filed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007