Appeal 2006-2838
Application 10/257,576
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)).
ANALYSIS
Claim 75 requires that the washer have ratchet teeth on at least one opposed
side. Although pawls are conventionally a component of a ratchet mechanism,
those skilled in the art would not consider the pawls 5 on Durbin’s washer to be the
claimed “ratchet teeth” because pawls, rather than being teeth themselves, are
considered in the art to be a portion of the ratchet mechanism, i.e., a “link” or
“catch,” that engages the teeth and permits motion in one direction only. As such,
Durbin does not disclose a washer with ratchet teeth. Accordingly, claim 75, and
its dependent claims 76-79 and 82, are not anticipated by Thompson.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that the Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 39, 40, 45, 47, 49, 51-53, 61, 62, 66, 67, 69, 75-79, and 82 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Thompson. We further concluded that the
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 41-44, 46, 48, 50,
60, 64, 65, 68, 70, 73, 74, and 80 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Thompson and McCoy, erred in rejecting claims 54 and 57 under 35 U.S.C.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013