Appeal 2008-0088
Application 10/662,426
The plain language of claim 1 specifies, with respect to Specification
Fig. 2, a cleaning apparatus comprising any burnishing object 19 capable of
being positioned over a disk to extend adjacent a surface of the disk at angle
α that is offset from a line passing through the center of the disk, and a
device that can (a) rotate burnishing object 19 to change the offset angle
thereof, and (b) translate burnishing object 19 relative to the disk to advance
a position of a center of contact of burnishing object 19 across the surface of
the disk. The claimed cleaning apparatus works on the disk and thus, the
disk forms no structural part of the cleaning apparatus. See, e.g., In re Otto,
312 F.2d 937, 939-40, 136 USPQ 458, 459-60 (CCPA 1963) ; In re Rishoi,
197 F.2d 342, 344-45, 94 USPQ 71, 72-73 (CCPA 1952); In re Young,
75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). The cleaning apparatus must be
capable of assuming the positions relative to the disk and performing the
functions as set froth in claim 1.
Appellants’ principal contention involves the function of the “device”
to “[translate] the burnishing object relative to the disk to advance a position
of a contact of the burnishing object across the surface of the disk.” Br.
10-11. We interpret this claim language in context to specify that the device
must be capable of translating the burnishing object between any one point
and any other point on the surface of the disk in advancing a position of
contact with the surface of the disk, regardless of the course of the
burnishing object between the two points. In this respect, we find no basis
in the claim language or in the disclosure in the Specification to read the
term “linearly” into the claim as a limitation on “to advance a position of a
contact” with respect to the translational course between the two points as
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013