Appeal No. 2001-1803
Application No. 09/087,775
not persuasive. Before the PTO, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation, and limitations are not be read into the claims from the specification. In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Here,
Borichevsky’s support surface, having a finite thickness, of necessity has a side at each of
its four edges; appellant’s argument that Borichevsky does not have sides extending from
the four edges is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, which only recites that the
sides are disposed at the edges, and not that the sides extend from the edges.
Accordingly, we will sustain rejection (2) as to claim 1, and as to claims 3, 5, 11 to
13 and 18 , which appellant has not argued separately.
Rejections (3)(a) to (3)(e)
For each of these rejections, appellant does not contend that the modification of
Borichevsky proposed by the examiner would not have been obvious, but rather that there
is no suggestion to modify the stool of Borichevsky to be stackable as recited in the last
four lines of claim 1 (brief, Issue C, pages 9 to 13). However, inasmuch as we have
concluded above in connection with rejection (2) that the stool of Borichevsky is inherently
capable of being so stacked, appellant’s contentions are not persuasive that rejections
(3)(a) to (3)(e) should not be sustained.
Rejections (3)(f) to 3(l)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007