Appeal No. 95-3582
Application 08/179,419
application's specification will not be read into the claims
during prosecution of a patent application (Sjolund v.
Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581-82, 6 USPQ2d 2020, 2027 (Fed.
Cir. 1988), it is also well settled that terms in a claim
should be construed in a manner consistent with the
specification and construed as those skilled in the art would
construe them (see In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d
1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990), Specialty Composites v. Cabot
Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 986, 6 USPQ2d 1601, 1604 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
and In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir. 1983)). Here, the examiner has expanded the meaning to
be given to the claimed “hollow tubular body” beyond all
reason. The alleged hollow tubular body in Wismer is in
reality four spike-like fingers or spurs 6 that project from a
washer-like plate 3, the ends of which have been bent over a
second washer-like plate 2 so as to retain the plates on
opposite sides of a button hole. We can think of no
circumstances under which the artisan, consistent with the
appellants’ specification, would construe these fingers or
spurs to correspond to the claimed hollow tubular body. This
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007