Appeal No. 95-3114
Application 08/051,800
pivoted to a plate 33 on the carrier such that it would be in
tension when clamped.
Appellant, incorrectly assuming that spot welds 21 are
rivets, argues that the Dutschka '718 device would require
modification of the vehicle, contrary to what is recited in the
independent claims. We do not agree. It is fundamental that
claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393,
1404, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969), and must be interpreted as
broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). In the present
case, the only specific reference we find in the specification to
modification of the vehicle is the statement on page 2, lines 11
to 18, to the effect that the device of the invention “permits
permanent fastening of a clamping unit on the body without any
modificational intervention therein.” Appellant states on page 3
of the brief that
by providing an anchorage portion that fixes the device
only on preexisting portions of the vehicle, the device
offers the advantage of avoiding the necessity of
diminishing the structural integrity or marring the
appearance of the vehicle through the use of special
purpose anchorage structures that involve riveting,
bolting, welding, or otherwise attaching the devices to
a vehicle in a manner that necessitates modifying the
vehicle itself.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007