Appeal 2007-0683
Application 10/121,772
After careful review of the Nakanishi reference in light of the
arguments of record, however, we are in general agreement with the
Examiner’s position as stated in the Answer. We simply find no support n
Appellants’ original disclosure for the interpretation of the claim language
“substantially identical” urged by Appellants in the Briefs. To begin with
the language “substantially identical” is not used anywhere in the
Specification but, rather, the terminology “nominally identical” is used
instead. (Specification 3:11, 5:13, 6:9, 8:2, 9:3, and 10:2). Aside from the
lack of reconciliation of the differences between the wording “substantially
identical” and “nominally identical” on the record before us, we can only
glean from Appellants’ lack of specificity in the disclosure that the claim
terminology “substantially identical” is intended to be given its plain
meaning in reference to the recited arm assemblies and flexure assemblies,
i.e., structures which approach, but are less than, an exact match.
With the above discussion in mind it is our view that the Examiner
has broadly, but reasonably, interpreted the claimed “substantially identical”
actuator arm and flexure assemblies as corresponding to those disclosed by
Nakanishi. We don’t disagree with Appellants’ characterization of the court
decision in Playtex v. Proctor Gamble, Co., 400 F.3d 901, 73 USPQ2d 2010
(Fed. Cir. 2005) as standing for the principle that the term ‘substantially” is a
comparative term requiring that claimed features be compared to a basis or
reference. It is our opinion, however, that, at the very least, in the particular
Nakanishi embodiment (col. 7, ll. 34-37) in which the flexure assemblies
(leaf springs 13a, 13b) have identical structural configuration but are made
of stainless steels with differing elastic moduli, the ordinarily skilled artisan
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013