Appeal 2007-0936
Application 10/455,507
no mention in Imamura of the trapezoidal area (i.e., the area of “access arm
2”), or any equivalent as having spring-like capabilities (Br. 6).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner argues that the Webster’s
Dictionary definition of the word “spring” supports the rejection (i.e., where
the dictionary definition of “spring” broadly corresponds to “elasticity” or
“resilience”). The Examiner argues that Imamura’s trapezoidal-hole region
inherently exhibits the property of “resilience” and thus has spring-like
capabilities. The Examiner notes that the amount of resilience contained in
the claimed “spring region” is not defined in the Specification nor depicted
in the instant drawings. Therefore, the Examiner concludes that the
language of the claim broadly encompasses Imamura’s trapezoidal-hole area
when the recited “spring region” is properly construed in light of the
Specification (Answer 6).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that the dictionary definition of
the term “spring” is not relevant to the instant invention. Instead, Appellants
note that the claims expressly recite a “spring region,” as described in
embodiments of the instant invention. Appellants specifically disagree with
the Examiner’s assertion that any material with properties of resilience is the
equivalent of a “spring region,” as claimed. Instead, Appellants submit that
the term “spring region” is “easily understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art, and therefore requires no further clarification” (Reply Br. 2-3).
ANALYSIS
We begin our analysis by construing the claim term “spring region”
by applying the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification. See In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013