Appeal No. 1998-2358 Page 8
Application No. 08/396,243
As to the appellants' contention that neither Breski nor
Cardenas teach the specific base recited in claim 1, Breski
teaches a base 43,44 having pivot pins 41,42 (i.e, "support
portions") that allow the side walls 29,30 to be inclined in an
angularly adjusted position (see column 3, lines 18-25). In
this regard, we note that 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)).
With respect to claim 10, the appellants argue that Breski
does not teach tines which are between 5-20 degrees; however,
the embodiment of Figs. 4-6 of Breski illustrates tines which
appear to be inclined within the claimed range, thus satisfying
this limitation. See Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105, 1106 (Bd.
Pat. App. & Int. 1993) and Titanium Metals Corp. of America v.
Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 782, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007