Appeal No. 97-3194 Page 11
Application No. 08/442,816
and the rod 1 and tube 3 are telescoped away from one another
so that the rod 1 is entirely separated from tube 3, the arms
of the U-shaped tube 3 are freely disengaged from the arms of
the U-shaped rod 1. We find no recitation in these claims
which would exclude the 90° rotation that is necessary in
Damon's lock to completely disengage rod 1 from tube 3.
The appellant's argument concerning claims 44, 45, 3, 11
and 12 are unpersuasive for the following reasons. The issue
of whether it would have been obvious to removing Damon's lug
6 and groove 4 as set forth by the examiner is moot in view of
our determination above that all limitations of claims 44, 45,
3, 11 and 12 are taught by Damon. With regard to claims 45
and 11, we find that Damon's pawl (i.e., locking plate 8) is
spring biased into abutting contact with one of the ratchet
teeth 2 (claim 45) or engagement with individual ratchet teeth
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 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007