Appeal 2007-3992
Application 10/347,867
(Answer at 3.) The Examiner reasoned that "[s]ince Applicant has not
defined the phrase 'intake end', the Examiner believes that the downstream
part 33, construed rather 'broadly', also reads on the claimed 'at least an
intake end of said garniture tongue', since, to some observers, this
downstream part 33 could still be considered to be part of the 'intake end'."
(Answer at 3-4.) The Examiner cited no evidence in support of this
conclusion as to how those of ordinary skill in the art would read and
understand the claim language.
In rebuttal, Muller points to paragraph 48 of its disclosure and to the
description of item 24 as the "intake end" of scraper 25. (Br. at 10.) Muller
argues that the disclosure that the scraper is attached to garniture tongue 7,
and that it can be made in one piece with the garniture tongue, would have
indicated to a person of ordinary skill in the art that "intake end 24 forms an
intake end of garniture tongue 7." (Br. at 10.)
What a reference discloses, and what is known to those of ordinary
skill in the art, are questions of fact. In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1311, 24
USPQ2d 1040, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Here, Muller has directed our
attention to evidence of record supporting its construction of the term
"intake end of said garniture tongue." Although broader than the use of the
term garniture tongue used to describe the embodiment of Figure 1, Muller's
construction is consistent with the broad functional definition of a garniture
tongue as "a forming and compression surface of a compression mold"
(FF 3; 867 Application at 1, ¶2.) We conclude that Muller's construction is
both broad and reasonable in light of the supporting disclosure.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013