Appeal No. 98-1538
Application No. 08/698,470
intermediate plane between a first angle portion at
the heel and a second angle portion at the toe of
the Fox patent. The intermediate plane does not
extend to the forward edge of the shoe of the Fox
patent. By contrast, the claimed invention requires
a forward plane with a substantially constant
thickness to its forward edge. The forward plane is
specifically defined in Applicants' specification as
extending from a rear plane to a forward peripheral
edge of the shoe. [Reply brief, page 2.]
We are unpersuaded by the appellants' arguments. The
terminology in a pending application's claims is to be given
its broadest reasonable interpretation (In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d, 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989)) and limitations from a pending application's
specification will not be read into the claims (Sjolund v.
Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581-82, 6 USPQ2d 2020, 2027 (Fed.
Cir. 1988)). Moreover, anticipation by a prior art reference
does not require either the inventive concept of the claimed
subject matter or the recognition of inherent properties that
may be possessed by the prior art reference. See Verdegaal
Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d
1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1987). A prior art reference
anticipates the subject matter of a claim when that reference
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007