# In re Sabatino

> Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · July 12, 1973 · 480 F.2d 911

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8890406

## Case

- **Full name:** Application of Anthony SABATINO and Daniel Orlando
- **Court:** Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
- **Decided:** July 12, 1973
- **Citations:** 480 F.2d 911; 178 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 357; 1973 CCPA LEXIS 315
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Markey
- **Judges:** Almond, Markey
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8890406

## Opinion text

MARKEY, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
With all respect, I must dissent. I agree that the precise issue is whether appellants’ disclosure supports the limitation, “wherein the diameter of said shanks permits limited entry into said hole.”
The only possible answer to the question “Does appellants’ shank diameter permit limited entry?” is “Yes.” Of course it also permits total entry, but that is not the question. If the claim read “total entry” and appellants’ diameter permitted only limited entry, the result would be different. But that is not the case.
Contrary to the rule requiring the broadest reasonable interpretation, the board and the principal opinion would read the word “only” before “limited.” I find no warrant in the record for so doing. It would be as reasonable to insert “at least.”
The board erred in finding no disclosure in appellants’ application of a relationship between the shank diameter and the entry thereof. Appellants’ drawing shows a relationship. Though it permits total entry, the diameter is shown as permitting an entry limited by contact with the opposed shank entering the hole from the opposite direction.
Whether Frischkorn’s drawing shows a shank tapered to limit entry, though vigorously argued, is not controlling where both appellants and Frisehkorn show a shank diameter “permitting” limited entry and the claim reads unambiguously on the disclosures of both.
To apply a claim limitation in haec verba is not to disregard it. So applied, the claim is supported by appellants’ disclosure. I would reverse.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8890406. Public record. Not legal advice.