Appeal No. 96-0005
Application 07/722,599
With respect to claim 15 the appellants argue that the cover
for the berthing area in Metcalf is really not “removable.” We
must point out, however, it is well settled that the claims in a
patent application are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation during prosecution of a patent application (see In
re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989)) and limitations from a pending application’s specification
will not be read into the claims (see Sjolund v. Musland, 847
F.2d 1573, 1581-82, 6 USPQ2d 2020, 2027 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). This
being the case, we are of the opinion that the cover 66 of
Metcalf which is mounted by hinges in such a manner that it can
selectively be moved to cover or uncover the berthing area can be
considered to be “removable” as broadly claimed.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 1 and 15 as being
anticipated by Metcalf and claim 1 as anticipated by the Japanese
publication.
Turning to the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Metcalf, the examiner has taken
the position that the top of the cover 66 would form a plurality
of seats when folded to the position illustrated in Fig. 12. In
our view, the examiner is attempting to expand the meaning of “a
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007