Appeal 2007-1788
Application 09/766,032
in response to a downward pull on the leader, before the float
body submerges completely. Spring switch arm 40 is
sufficiently delicate that, when spring 64 is completely relaxed,
arm 40 will provide the desired sensitivity under the lightest
normal leader load likely to be encountered, while spring 64 is
sufficiently heavy to be capable of reducing the switch
sensitivity to a level adapted to the greatest normal leader load
likely to be encountered.
(Id., col. 5, ll. 12-25.)
As further explained by Riead:
If the float body is equipped with a lamp bulb as
described, the problem is compounded, since the sensitivity of
the lamp actuating switch must be closely correlated to the
buoyancy of the float body. If the switch is too sensitive, the
lamp may light even when a fish has not taken the bait, the
switch being closed by the normal leader load alone, or by
ripples at the water surface. If the switch is too insensitive, the
leader load occasioned by a fish’s taking the bait may not close
the switch at all, or only after the float is submerged, in view of
the already only slight float buoyancy. Therefore, for
maximum efficiency, the float buoyancy should be only very
slightly greater than its own weight plus the variable leader
load applied thereto, so that it is submerged by only a slight
increase in leader load which occurs when a fish takes the bait,
and the lamp switch sensitivity should be such that the switch is
closed by a still smaller increase in the leader load.
(Id., col. 1, ll. 51-68 (emphasis added).)
Our mandate is to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation.
In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70
USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “An essential purpose of patent
examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and
unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013