Appeal No. 97-4151
Application 08/379,181
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification,
and that limitations appearing in the specification will not
be read into the claims. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404,
162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
Appellant also contends that Phibbs does not disclose a
removable compartment, as recited in claims 1 and 11. It is
not clear to us what the examiner means by his statement,
quoted above, that trays 17 of Phibbs (which are not disclosed
as removable) are considered the equivalent of a removable
compartment. Nevertheless, we consider that Phibbs discloses
a removable compartment as claimed.
In construing claims of a pending application
the PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed
claims, the broadest reasonable meaning of the words
in their ordinary usage as they would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into
account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions
or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the applicant's
specification.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d, 1023, 1027 (Fed.
Cir. 1997).
Here, if we look to the appellant's specification for
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007