Ex parte KOBAYASHI et al. - Page 9




          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