Appeal No. 1997-3709
Application 08/582,034
respective passageway end. Furthermore, the explanation on7
page 8, lines 15-31, of appellants’ specification of the
significance of the relationship between the end axially
extending dimensions ((A2), (B2)) and the center axially
extending dimensions ((A1), (B1)) is consistent with the
measurement of the end axially extending dimensions as shown
in appellants’ drawings, and in fact would appear to allow for
measurement of the end axially extending dimension at any
location circumferentially offset from the center axially
extending dimension and near the edge of the respective
passageway end. Consistent with appellants’ disclosure, and
bearing in mind that claims must 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 that limitations will not be read into the claims
from the specification (Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573,
1582, 6 USPQ2d 2020, 2027 (Fed. Cir. 1988)), we interpret the
claim terminology “a first axially extending dimension” and “a
7Indeed, the exact location of appellants’ dimension
lines A2 and B2 relative to the edge of the passageway ends
appears to be somewhat arbitrary.
-15-
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007