Appeal 2007-2577
Application 90/006,344
of one (and only one) piece.15 Lin expressly describes the "connecting
socket 20b [as] consist[ing] of a socket 24, a connecting cylinder 25, a large
nut 26, and a small nut 26." Thus, in the mind of Lin's readers, the
connecting socket 20b is a functional unit made up of subunits. Giving
claim 1 its broadest reasonable construction—as we must16—we cannot read
claim 1 to exclude a first connecting member consisting of subunits.
first member tail portion
Prazoff objects to the examiner's association of the tail portion with
the rear of Lin's connecting cylinder 25 for the same reasons stated more
broadly for the first connecting member. In addition, however, Prazoff
questions whether the threaded portion 252 in Lin can truly be said to be
"affixed to the end of said first ropelight". Lin shows the threaded
cylinder 252 with notches 253 such that tightly screwing on small nut 26
clamps cylinder 25 to a bulb-holding bar 10a.17 One of skill in the art would
have understood the threaded portion 252 of connecting cylinder 25 to be
"affixed" to rope light 10a by operation of this clamping. Claim 1 does not
15 Cf. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 105_, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir.
1997), in which "integrally formed as a portion of" (emphasis added) was
read to be broader than "fused together". If anything, Prazoff is in a weaker
position since "member" is if anything even less suggestive of a unitary
construction than "integral".
16 See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989) (reversing for reliance on a construction narrower than the broadest
reasonable construction).
17 Lin 4:26-30.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013