Appeal 2007-2888
Application 11/017,602
Claim 1 recites that the airframe section comprises “a foam portion”
which provides “an interference fit between” the airframe frame members.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant provides a definition of “interference fit” as “a
fastening between two parts which is achieved by friction after the parts are
pushed together” (Reply Br. 1). We find this definition consistent with the
dictionary definition of “interference,”2 and therefore we adopt it for the
purpose of interpreting the scope of the claim. Thus, we understand an
“interference fit” to mean that the foam is held in place between the airframe
frame members by friction after the parts are pushed together.
Claim 17, which is dependent on independent claim 1, recites that the
“foam portion is sized to be force fit between” the frame members. The
Specification states that “[m]ost preferably, each foam portion 34 is shaped
to be larger than the particular void [between the frame members], then force
fit into the void 32 between the multitude of frame members 26 which
surround that void 32” (Specification ¶ 21; see Figs. 2-3). While we do not
read limitations from the Specification into the claims, we also give claims
their broadest reasonable interpretation as the skilled worker would
understand them in view of the Specification. Accordingly, we interpret
“sized to be force fit” to mean that the foam portion is sized larger than the
void. In other words, like the interference fit, the foam is pushed between the
frame members and held in place by the resulting frictional force between
the foam and frame members.
2 Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1961) at page 1178 defines
“interference”, in part, as “contact so close as to produce deformation and
stress.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013