Appeal 2007-1670
Application 10/102,565
important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim. For
example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be
read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.”) The
challenge is to interpret claims in view of the specification without unnecessarily
importing limitations from the specification into the claims. See E-Pass Techs.,
Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir.
2003).
It is the appellants’ burden to precisely define the invention, not the PTO’s.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appellants always have the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution,
and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim,
once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Prater, 415
F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites a door panel assembly including a first
mounting feature securing a drive mechanism to a door panel and a second
mounting feature securing the cable drum housing to the door panel, “the second
mounting feature being sandwiched between the first mounting feature and the
door panel on the dry side.” The Examiner found that Dobson discloses a drive
mechanism (20) secured to a door panel (18) via a first mounting feature (48) and a
cable drum housing (24) secured to the door panel (18) via a second mounting
feature (46), where the second mounting feature (46) is “sandwiched” between the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013