Appeal 2007-2439
Application 10/089,668
corresponds to Boecking’s bush 16 which moves during operation of the fuel
injector (Answer 3).
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not established a prima facie
case of anticipation because claim features are not disclosed by Boecking
(Br. 3). Specifically, Appellant contends that Boecking fails to disclose “a
sleeve to pre-stress the restoring spring” as recited in claim 26 (Br. 3).
Appellant contends that the part indicated by reference numeral 13 of nozzle
needle 5 in Boecking does not pre-stress nozzle spring 12 (Br. 3). Appellant
argues that Boecking does not disclose “an adjustment body” as recited in
claim 26 (Br. 4). Appellant further argues that Boecking’s bush 16 (i.e.,
sleeve according to Appellant) is moveable, whereas Appellant’s claimed
invention has fixed sleeve 24 into which a moveable adjusting body 40 is
inserted (Reply Br. 2).
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and find them
unpersuasive for the reasons indicated below.
During examination, “claims … are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and … claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re American Academy of
Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the
applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to
obtain more precise claim coverage. Id.
Boecking discloses that nozzle spring 12 is pre-stressed between
collar 17 and the end-face (13) (i.e., sleeve) of the nozzle needle 5
(Boecking, col. 4, ll. 13-24). The cooperation of the end-face 13 (i.e.,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013