Appeal 2007-1707
Application 10/335,597
In sum, when read in the light of the Specification, the skilled worker
would understand that it is the aperture, itself, which is “resilient” and
“configured to expand and contract” as required by the claim. The purpose
is to enable bi-directional assembly, permitting 1) the screws to be inserted
and held securely (Specification 3: 20) by the bone plate for an “anchors first
approach” or 2) to enable the bone plate to snap on to screws which have
already been attached to the bone (Specification 2: 9-16). In the latter
approach, the resilient aperture expands to accommodate the screw head,
and then returns to its original form after having been stretched.
Having properly interpreted the claim, we can now turn to the
anticipation rejection. The aperture shown in Assaker does not “expand and
contract” as required by the claim. Its dimension changes when the slide is
pushed over it, but this change is caused by a “sliding plate” which modifies
the size of the aperture after the screw has been secured to the bone. The
aperture structure, itself, is not resilient and does not change in size. The
PTO’s mandate is to give the words in a claim their “broadest reasonable
meaning in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way
of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description
contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Examiner’s conclusion
that the Assaker’s sliding plate configuration is a “resilient aperture” is not
based on a reasonable meaning of the claim term when read in light of the
Specification. Thus, the Examiner erred in interpreting claim 1.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013