Appeal No. 97-2642 Page 18
Application No. 08/094,461
On pages 30-31, 34 and 40-41 of the brief and pages 6 and
8 of the reply brief, the appellant argues that the system of
Raymond is not a "closed loop." Claims 4, 13 and 32 recite
that the liquid circulates in a "closed loop." In our view,
the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term "closed 6
loop" as used herein is that a flow path recirculates the
liquid and the flow path is not constantly exposed to the
atmosphere. The flow path of oil in Raymond is a closed loop.
Contrary to the appellant's argument, the mere fact that
Raymond's loop includes the reservoir 50 does not by
definition make the loop open. Raymond's reservoir 50 must be
closed (i.e., not constantly exposed to the atmosphere) since
he teaches that the reservoir 50 contains an air space. The
flow path of the second fluid 56 in McEachern is a closed
loop. It is our opinion that the modified flow path suggested
6In proceedings before the PTO, claims in an application
are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, and that claim language
should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Sneed,
710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from
the specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26
USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993) citing In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007