Appeal 2007-1463 Page 23
Application 10/083,492
C. Principles of Law
We incorporate herein the principles of law under the Principles of Law
section for the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 16-18, 24, 25, 29, 30, 35-38,
40, and 41 above.
D. Analysis
There is no dispute that the plate (element 12, Fig. 3) of Keller sits in a
cavity (element 11) in a disk (element 1). The only question is whether in doing so
Keller shows locating the plate “on the lower portion of the disk.” In that regard,
we agree with the Examiner’s analysis that this question turns on the interpretation
to be given the claim term “portion.” Answer 18. The Examiner correctly gave the
term the plain meaning of the term, citing a dictionary definition which defined the
term as “ a part of a whole.” The Specification, for its part, does not define the
term inconsistent with its plain meaning. We agree with the Examiner that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the Specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art is that it covers the plate
being disposed below the surface of the disk. Since Keller shows that arrangement,
Keller shows locating the plate “on the lower portion of the disk” as claimed.
E. Conclusion of Law
On the record before us, Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner
erred in rejecting the claims over the prior art.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013