Appeal 2007-1331
Application 10/296,814
multiple joint allowing rotation about said first and second axes” (emphasis
added). We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications “not solely
on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest
reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by
one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The customary meaning of “axis”
is “A straight line about which a body or geometric object rotates or may be
conceived to rotate.” (Finding of Fact 1.) The claim recites a “multiple joint” that
allows rotation about first and second axes. Consistent with the Specification, the
multiple joint requires rotation about two different axes (Finding of Fact 3). The
Appellants’ Specification further describes throughout the disclosure that the two
table elements can be rotated relative to one another around at least two different
swiveling axes by way of articulations (Finding of Fact 2). As such, the broadest
reasonable construction of the claimed “first and second axes,” as would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, requires that the first axis travel
through a straight line different from the straight line traveling through the second
axis, such that the first and second axes cannot be co-linear.
Rejection of claims 10, 13, 17, 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Dixon
The Appellants contend that Dixon does not anticipate the claimed invention
because it does not disclose a table unit where the table elements can rotate relative
to one another about two separate axes (See e.g., Appeal Br. 5). The Examiner
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013