Appeal No. 2006-2108
Application No. 10/392,418
See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed.
Cir. 1989); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388
(Fed. Cir. 1983). Because all of the references to motor vehicle
components in the appellants’ specification are merely exemplary,
the broadest reasonable interpretation of “vehicle component” in
view of the appellants’ specification is that it encompasses
vehicle components generally. Consequently, we accept the
examiner’s general definition of “vehicle” which is not disputed
by the appellants, i.e., “a medium through which something is
achieved” (answer, page 8). Because Oetiker’s connector and the
tube attached to the connector achieve something, i.e., fluid
flow through them, each of those components is properly
considered a “vehicle component” according to the broadest
reasonable meaning of that term consistent with the appellants’
specification.
The appellants argue that Oetiker’s annular portion 12
cannot be a main body because it is too small a portion of the
overall nipple structure 10 (brief, page 9). Oetiker’s nipple
portion 30 can be considered to correspond to the appellants’
first vehicle component’s transversely extending projection
defining a longitudinal axis, and the remainder of the connector,
which is a substantial part of the connector, can be considered
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007