Appeal 2007-1167
Application 10/784,056
USPQ2d at 1322. “Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be
removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” Id.
Both Claims 1 and 6 require “a support member slidably connected
within the releasable clamp” (Br. App. A). The key word is “within.” This
term is not defined in Applicant’s specification. Thus, it must be given the
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Applicant’s specification.
“[I]n proceedings before the PTO, claims in an application are to be given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In
re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Applicant’s specification discloses the use of “a releasable clamp 22
that wraps around the shaft 14 and is tightened to lock the support member
20 in place at a desired location on the shaft” (Spec., p. 3). Applicant’s
Figure 1 appears to show that the support member 20 is connected within an
appendage of the releasable clamp 22 (Spec., Fig. 1). Thus, the broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification is that the phrase
“within the releasable clamp” means within the clamp or within any
appendage thereto.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013