Appeal No. 2006-0686 Παγε 5
Application No. 09/407,053
since the spring members 54 are not formed by revolving a circle about a line in its
plane without intersecting it so as to define a surface or solid shaped like a doughnut.
The examiner's reliance on the three patents cited on page 8 of the answer and
page 6 of the amended specification as providing support for a broader definition of the
term "torus" is misplaced. First, two of the three patents cited on page 8 of the answer
misuse the term "torus" and thus provide no support whatsoever for a broader definition
of the term "torus." Second, the other of the three patents cited on page 8 of the
answer does not use the term "torus" and thus provides no support whatsoever for a
broader definition of the term "torus." Lastly, while page 6 of the amended specification
provides that "[w]hile toroid shaped rings with circular cross sections have been shown
and described, the present invention is not limited in this regard as other cross-sectional
shapes, such as square, can be employed without departing from the broader aspect of
the present invention," this does not outweigh the fact that the claims use the term
"torus" which has a more limiting definition as set forth above. Thus, by using the term
"torus" the appellant has expressly adopted the more limited dictionary definition for that
term so as to distinguish the claimed invention over Anderson.
Since the applied prior art does not teach or suggest either (1) at least one
compression spring comprising a solid resilient material having a torus shape as recited
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007