Appeal No. 97-2483
Application 08/575,830
Grote inasmuch as Grote’s members 18, 19 define radially
projecting ridges on the Grote's cap is a radiator cap
periphery and are more narrow than Grote’s channels.
Furthermore, the argument that the “ridge of [the] gas
cap fits in channel [sic]” is equally unavailing inasmuch as
neither claim 1 nor claim 4 recites that the gas cap ridge
"fits" in one or more channels. In this regard, it is well
established patent law that 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, 644-45, 89 USPQ 64, 66 (CCPA 1951).
With regard to appellants’ arguments about the shaft
and the handle, our reviewing court stated in In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) that
“[d]uring patent examination the pending claims must be
interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.” It
also has been held that words in a claim are to be given their
ordinary and accustomed meaning unless it appears that the
inventor used them differently in his specification. Lantech,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007