Appeal No. 2006-0812
Application No. 09/391,294
(i) a first support flange lying in the first plane and
extending outwardly from the first portion, and
(ii) a second support member flange lying in the second plane
and extending outwardly therefrom. (Appeal Brief, pages 8-9).
The support for this position appears to arise from the
appellants’ belief that Hauck’s flanges, while extending beyond
the support members, do not actually extend from them. This is
said to be so because the flange is formed from a different
material and therefore extends from itself, not from the member.
Hauck is said to disclose a metal flange over which the wooden
corner strip may be placed. (Id., page 9).
It is evident that this issue will hinge on an interpretation
of the language of the claim. We, therefore, embark on our
analysis with the words of the claim.
Federal Circuit precedent provides guidance with respect to
the construction of claims undergoing examination. Burlington
Industries, Inc. v. Quigg, 822 F.2d 1581, 1583, 3 USPQ2d 1436,
1438 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (claims undergoing examination are given
their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
specification). We therefore shall give the claims their broadest
reasonable interpretation, divining whatever guidance as is
appropriate from the specification.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007