Appeal No. 97-1702
Application 08/355,599
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and (4) entered a new rejection of
claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. The
request is directed to our affirmance of claims 6, 7, 16 and
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 8 and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. We have carefully reconsidered our decision in
light of the arguments advanced; however, we decline to alter
our decision in any respect.
The appellant's arguments are based on the position that
the claimed "cover" must be an element which is entirely
separate and distinct from the ball. In support of this
position the appellant has cited various dictionary
definitions; however, as we pointed out on pages 4 and 5 of
our decision, it is well settled that the terminology in a
pending application's claims is to be given its broadest
reasonable interpretation (In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056,
44 USPQ2d 1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and 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 (Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d
1573, 1581-82, 6 USPQ2d 2020, 2027 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007