Appeal No. 2006-2116
Application No. 08/879,517
During patent examination the pending claims must be
interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.
When the applicant states the meaning that the claim terms
are intended to have, the claims are examined with that
meaning, in order to achieve a complete exploration of the
applicant’s invention and its relation to the prior art.
We find no explicit definition of the term “desk-top cutting
machine” in appellant’s supporting specification. Nevertheless,
10 it is sufficient for purposes of this appeal that we are able to
relate the “desk-top cutting machine[s]” appellant claims to the
cutting machines described by the prior art. Based on our
consideration of appellant’s specification and all the other
evidence of record, we conclude that persons having ordinary skill
in the art at the pertinent time reasonably would have understood
that the cutting machines described by Ito and depicted in
acknowledged prior art Figures 6 and 7 of appellant’s patent are
“desk-top” cutting machines of the same basic type, size and
utility as the “deck-top cutting machine[s]” appellant claims.
20 Moreover, we find that cutting machines encompassed by
appellant’s Claim 1 and those described by Ito, Johnson, Ambrosio
and Japanese Laid-Open Utility Model Publication No. 63-49901/
Japanese Utility Model Application (OPI) No. 49901/88 (commonly
cited as prior art pertaining to the particular problem with which
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007