Appeal 2006-1490
Application 10/116,534
The Examiner identifies other precisely machined functional surfaces
on the respective housings in Ernst that include, inter alia, lower portions
that support sealing lips 16 (on device housing 5) and sealing strips 17 (on
sleeve-like housing 10). Appellant’s disclosure does not distinguish
“precisely machined” surfaces from machined surfaces. The lower
functional surface of the sleeve-like housing 10 in Ernst is “precisely
machined” at least to the extent that, for proper functioning of the device, the
surface cannot interfere with the scanning unit 9.
Instant claim 1 recites that the device housing has functional surfaces
corresponding to the functional surfaces of the sleeve-like housing for
receiving the sleeve-like housing. Contrary to Appellant’s position, the
language does not implicitly require that the respective surfaces are in
contact with the corresponding surface. The claim could have been
amended with express language commensurate with Appellant’s arguments.
“An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are
precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties
of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative
process.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989). Moreover, our reviewing court has repeatedly warned against
confining the claims to specific embodiments described in the specification.
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1334 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (en banc).
Instant claim 9 is broader than claim 1 in the aspect of the device
housing having a (i.e., one) contour corresponding to a (i.e., one) precisely
machined contour of the sleeve-like housing, for receiving and fitting the
sleeve-like housing to the device housing. As we have noted, the sleeve-like
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013