Appeal No. 2004-1361
Application No. 09/430,574
connecting block on Schnell’s retainer member 172, and more
particularly on the clamp attachment region 174 of the retainer
member, and the limitations relating to the tube on Schnell’s
fluid-bearing tube.
As framed and argued by the appellant (see pages 4 through 8
in the brief), the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is unsound for
three reasons: (1) Schnell’s retainer member 172 and clamp
attachment region 174 do not constitute a “female” connecting
block, (2) the tapered portion 188 of Schnell’s tube is not
“seated against” the transition surface defined by the
intersection of the throughbore 184 and chamfer 198 of the female
connecting block, and (3) the end 179 of Schnell’s tube does not
constitute an “end-form.”
The appellant’s position here is not persuasive, essentially
because it rests on an improper reading of limitations from the
specification into claim 1. It is well settled that during
patent examination, claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the underlying
specification without reading limitations from the specification
into the claims. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ
541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007