Appeal No. 2003-1279
Application 09/455,621
936 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In the present case, it is clear from the
Specification and claims that the term “fixed” requires that the
spring is assembled between the pusher member and the pin keeper
in such a manner that it is capable of “hold[ing] the entire
module [42] together as a self-contained unit.” Claim 1. See
Specification, page 10, line 14 - page 11, line 12 (wherein
appellants describe how the coil spring is “fixed” to the pin
keeper). Cf. In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343,
1348, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 123
S.Ct. 1487 (2003) (quoting Intervet Am., Inc. v. Kee-Vet Labs,
Inc., 887 F.2d 1050, 1053, 12 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1989))
(“[L]imitations appearing in the specification will not be read
into claims, and . . . interpreting what is meant by a word in
a claim ‘is not to be confused with adding an extraneous
limitation appearing in the specification, which is improper.’”)
In support of his contention that Knight teaches a
spring having opposite ends fixed to the pusher member and pin
keeper to hold the entire module together as a self-contained
unit, the examiner references Figure 4 of Knight. However, we
are in agreement with appellants that Figure 4 and the
corresponding discussion relating to the spring 22 in Knight’s
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007