Appeal 2006-3320
Application 10/417,638
During patent prosecution, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification, as the claim language would have
been read by one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the Specification. 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). The relevant ordinary
meaning of “cap” is “something that serves as a cover or protection esp. for a tip,
knob, or end <a bottle ~>”.1 The Appellant’s Specification, which shows the cap
as a covering (figs. 1-8), is consistent with that definition. Goiny’s clamping rings
are not disclosed as serving as a cover or protection. Instead, they are disclosed as
serving to clamp the nut and pressure ring together such that there is lateral and
axial freeplay between them (col. 4, ll. 37-43). The Examiner has not provided
evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered such a clamp
to be a cap according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of “cap” in view of
the Appellant’s Specification. The Examiner’s mere speculation to that effect is
not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of anticipation.
Rejection over Bydalek
Bydalek discloses a wheel fastener comprising, in the embodiment shown in
figure 2, 1) a bolt (12) (which corresponds to the Appellant’s body) having a
flange (22), 2) a thrust washer (40) (which corresponds to the Appellant’s washer),
and 3) a pressure ring (16) having a flange (32) comprising a crimp (54) that
overlaps the body’s flange “thus preventing the inadvertent separation of the
bolt 12 from the pressure ring 16 while preserving a degree of longitudinal and
1 Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 163 (G. &. C. Merriam 1973).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013