Appeal No. 97-2547
Application 07/949,042
The arguments advanced in support of these points (see
pages 2 and 3 in the request) are basically rehashes of the
arguments advanced in the earlier appeal and are no more
persuasive now than they were then. During patent
examination, the terms in a claim are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification without reading limitations from the
specification into the claim. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The appellants’
reliance on their specification and on the 37 CFR § 1.132
declaration of Edward A. Krupotich filed on July 6, 1993
(Paper No. 6) to read limitations into the term “work4
station” as employed in claim 21 (see page 2 in the request)
is not well taken because neither establishes that “work
station” is a term of art having an established specific
meaning. Thus, we remain of the view that the area
immediately downstream of DeHart’s chute 38 constitutes a
“work station” as broadly defined in claim 21. Moreover,
4Paper No. 6 actually contains a copy of the Krupotich
declaration. The original is of record in parent Application
07/695,435 which has matured into U.S. Patent No. 5,156,515.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007