Appeal 2007-1812
Application 10/759,713
thermal unit” (Edwards, col. 1, ll. 54-56). Attached to the therapy section of
the wrap are long and short connecting means; each of the connecting means
has left and right sections that extend outwardly from the sides of the
therapy section, as well as elements for attaching the two sections of each
connecting means to each other (id. at col. 1, l. 61, to col. 2, l. 30). As
depicted in Figure 1, Edwards discloses attaching elements that are
positioned completely within the perimeter of the wrap.
Appellants argue that Edwards fails to disclose a strap having a single
fastener (Br. 4). Instead, Appellants argue that the “Edwards device has two
fasteners, each of which are positioned on the respectively attachable ‘ears’
of an hourglass-shaped wrap” (id.). Appellants also argue that, “while
‘comprising’ takes on the appearance of opening the claim to an additional
fastener, the explicit recitation of a ‘single’ fastener should limit the claim to
one fastener for the sole reason that it would be impossible (and nonsensical)
to have more than one single fastener” (Reply Br. 2).
We are not persuaded by this argument. “It is axiomatic that, in
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) (citation
omitted). In this case, we agree with the Examiner that reciting “a single
fastener” is insufficient to require that no other fastener be present in the
device. First, in view of the “comprising” language, we agree that it is
reasonable to interpret claim 1 to include another fastener.
Second, even if the term “single” fastener was interpreted to mean
“one and only one” fastener, claim 1 would still reasonably appear to read
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013