Appeal 2006-1042
Application 10/208,131
the at least one fold must be formed directly by the material guide, [but]
rather [by] the cooperation of the material guide with at least one ski to
produce the fold” (Answer 8). That is, the claim limitation does not require
that the material guide “engage the web (W) just to the inside and just to the
outside of the inner and outer skis . . . to fold the web around those skis
making certain a fold (F) is formed by the outer longitudinal edges (101) of
the runners” (Br. 9).
During examination, claims are interpreted as broadly as is reasonable
and consistent with the specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appellants’ arguments in the Brief and Reply Brief appear to restrict
the claim limitation at issue to the embodiment described on page 15, lines
12-16 of the Specification (Br. 9). On the other hand, the specification
unambiguously states, “that details of the foregoing embodiment, given for
purposes of illustration, are not to be construed as limiting the scope of this
invention” (Spec. 16). We also note that claim 9 does not recite any
structure regarding the material guide. One with ordinary skill in the art,
given Appellants’ disclosure above, would not have read the limitation of
claim 9 as narrowly as Appellants argue in the Brief. Thus, we agree with
the Examiner’s forenoted broad interpretation as reasonable and consistent
with the specification (i.e., wherein the claim is interpreted to not require
that the at least one fold be formed directly by the material guide).
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007