Appeal No. 95-4371
Application No. 08/064,440
Machine Company, 32 F.3d 542, 546, 31 USPQ2d 1666, 1670 (Fed.
Cir. 1994).
According to its applicable, common ordinary meaning in
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (G. & C. Merriam
Company, 1971) the word “tooth” is defined as a projection
resembling or suggesting a tooth. The projections on
Feighofen’s belt clearly resemble teeth. Thus, when the claim
language is given its broadest reasonable interpretation, the
recitation in claim 1 that the belt has a “toothed surface”
does not distinguish from Feighofen’s belt.
Admittedly, Feighofen does not disclose his teeth-like
projections as being driving teeth as argued on page 10 of the
main brief. However, claim 1 does not recite that the teeth on
the belt drive the belt or are driving teeth in any sense. In
short, features not claimed may not be relied upon to support
patentability. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ
1, 5 (CCPA 1982) and In re Richards, 187 F.2d 643, 645, 89
USPQ 64, 66 (CCPA 1951). We even fail to find any description
in appellant’s specification that the teeth on the belt drive
the belt.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007