Appeal 2007-2439
Application 10/089,668
CLAIM 28
Appellant argues that nozzle spring 12 of Boecking is supported on a
non-injection end of control chamber 15 whereas claim 28 recites that the
restoring spring is supported on an injection end of the sleeve (Br. 4).
We have considered Appellant’s argument and find it unpersuasive
for the reasons below.
The Examiner takes the position that Appellant has failed to indicate
which end is the injection end and thus, “the broadest reasonable
interpretation of ‘injection end’” can include any “end” which is associated
with “an injection” (Answer 7). The Examiner uses this construction of the
claim term “an injection end” to determine that, since fuel is throttled into
control chamber 15 via inlet throttle 19, the end-face 13 of nozzle needle 5
which abuts the nozzle spring 12 must be “an injection end” (Answer 7).
We agree.
As noted above, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification during examination.
American Academy of Science, 367 F.3d at 1364, 70 USPQ2d at 1830. An
applicant “may demonstrate an intent to deviate from the ordinary and
accustomed meaning of a claim term by including in the specification
expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear
disavowal of claim scope.” American Academy of Science, 367 F.3d at
1365, 70 USPQ2d at 1831.
Appellant has not included in his Specification “expressions of
manifest exclusion or restriction” that would lead us to conclude that “an
injection end” has a different meaning than the ordinary and accustomed
meaning given to it by the Examiner. We determine that the Examiner
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013