Appeal 2007-0102
Application 10/338,988
embodiment correspond to the terminal plate projections shown in Figure 2
of Kawate. These last mentioned projections certainly are capable of being
pressed into engagement with Kawate’s heat transfer member or lamella
element. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-
32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Second, Kawate’s projections perform an “attaching” function when
the claim 1 language is given its broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification as interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the
art. In re American Academy of Science Tech. Cen., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364,
70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this regard, the Appellant
discloses the projections are for “attaching” or “fixing” the lamella element
on the radiator sheet (Specification 5, ll. 2 and 26), but does not define what
is meant to be encompassed by the term “attaching.” Therefore, it is
appropriate to consult the dictionary definition of the term “attach.” Phillips
v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317-18, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329-30. The
word “attach” is defined as “[t]o fasten on or affix to: connect or join”
(Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary 1984). Given this
definition, it is proper to regard the forward and rearward projections shown
in Figure 2 of Kawate as performing the claim 1 purpose of “attaching” or
fixing since they fix in place Patentee’s heat transfer members or lamella
elements in the forward and rearward directions.
In addition, we find no convincing merit in the Appellant’s position
that claim 1 distinguishes over Kawate via the recitation “wherein the first
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013