Appeal No. 95-1360
Application No. 08/134,002
the disclosed additive to rapid hardening hydraulic cement
(Brief, p. 4). However, the examiner points out that
Watanabe discloses that the additive may be added to various
Portland cements and hydraulic cements (Answer, p. 3; col. 5,
lines 48-51). According to the examiner (Answer, pp. 6-7):
The appellants argue that Watanabe et al. do
not teach a “rapid hardening” hydraulic cement and
directs the examiner to the appropriate passages
within their specification showing cements
containing calcium sulphoaluminate compounds which
are different than Portland cement. However, the
appellants err because they are arguing limitations
not present within their own claims. Nowhere do
appellants’ claims require that their rapid
hardening hydraulic cement contain a “calcium
sulphoaluminate compound”. While it is true that
the claims are “interpreted” in light of the
specification, it is improper to read the
limitations of the specification into the claims.
The appellants’ RHHC (rapid hardening hydraulic
cement) thus still reads on any hydraulic cement
including Portland cement.
We agree with the examiner that it is improper to read
limitations from the specification into the claims.
Nevertheless, a claim cannot be read in a vacuum but rather
must be read in light of the specification to thereby
interpret limitations explicitly recited in the claim. In re
Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA
1969). The Court in Prater, 415 F.2d at 1404, 162 USPQ at
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007