Appeal No. 96-0586
Application 07/950,081
All the rejections depend on the examiner’s interpretation
of Claim 1 as encompassing steering wheel damping/assisting
devices such as Ito and Sano. Examiner’s Answer at page 4, line
22, through page 5, line 1 and at page 18, lines 3-5; and
Examiner’s Supplemental Answer at page 3, lines 10-20. According
to Appellants, the claims are limited to devices which positively
actuate a steering wheel even when the driver is not turning or
gripping the wheel. Appeal Brief at page 8, line 29 through page
9, line 6 and at page 10, lines 6-13; and Reply Brief at page 3,
lines 5-21 and at page 10, line 10 through page 11, line 8. We
agree with Appellants.
Claims undergoing examination are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and
limitations appearing in the specification are not to be read
into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5
(Fed. Cir. 1985) (in banc).
The examiner’s interpretation is not reasonable because
steering wheel damping/assisting devices cannot be considered
steering actuators which “turn said steering wheel in a direction
to suppress the motor vehicle behavior” as required by the
claims. Instead, such devices merely damp or assist a driver’s
turning of the steering wheel.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007