Appeal No. 97-0972
Application 08/399,571
interpretation (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). Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the
“wings” 18 and 24 of Gardels can be considered to extend from
opposite “sides” (i.e., the top side and the bottom side) as
broadly claimed. Moreover, as we have noted above, in the
embodiment of Fig. 6 of Gardels the plate-like structure at the
upper end of the hold-down member 110 has portions that extend to
either side of the hold-down member which may be broadly
considered to form “wings.”
In view of the above, we will sustain the rejection of
claims 1-3, 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Gardels.
Considering next the rejection of claims 4, 5 and 8-12 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Gardels, we find
nothing in Gardels which would fairly suggest “two beveled
corners diagonally opposed one from the other” (emphasis ours) as
set forth in claims 4, 8 and 12. With respect to claims 5 and
9-12, the examiner is of the opinion that Gardels shows a slit at
22, however, we do not believe that the square opening 22 can be
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007