Appeal 2006-2825
Application 10/691,916
construction of the pending claims. The dependency of dependent claims is
governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, which provides, in relevant part, in paragraph
5, that “[a] claim in multiple dependent form shall contain a reference, in the
alternative only, to more than one claim previously set forth and then specify
a further limitation of the subject matter claimed.” As none of Appellants’
claims contains a reference to more than one claim previously set forth, they
will not be construed as multiple dependent claims. With that in mind, we
now turn to the issues raised in this appeal.
The Examiner has not erred in finding that Toomey’s first and second
brake master cylinders 6 and 15 are connected to a single brake conduit,
namely, threaded connection 28, via Tee valve 22 (FF2 and FF4). Threaded
connection 28 is clearly illustrated (Fig. 3) as being a discrete element
threadedly received in a bore of leg 27 of Tee valve 22 (FF4). We determine
the scope of the claims in patent applications “not solely on the basis of the
claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable
construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75
USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir.
2004)). Consistent with Appellants’ Specification, which gives no
indication that the term “conduit” is used in any manner different from its
ordinary and customary meaning, we interpret the language “hydraulic
braking conduit” in claim 1 to be “a pipe or channel for conveying fluids”
(Webster's New World Dictionary 291 (Victoria Neufeldt et al. eds., 3rd coll.
ed., Simon & Schuster, Inc. 1988)) within a hydraulic braking system.
Toomey’s threaded connection 28 is a pipe or channel for conveying
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013