Appeal No. 97-4185 Page 9
Application No. 08/602,274
The argument advanced by the appellants (brief, pp. 8-12
and reply brief, pp. 2-4) is not persuasive for the following
reasons.
First, we agree with the examiner (answer, pp. 3 and 6)
that the claimed "display area" reads on the lower planar
surface of Ross's glove drier shown in Figure 1 (i.e., the
lower planar surface near the hook 15 and below the lower edge
of the glove body 27). In 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). Contrary to the appellants' argument, we have
determined that the display area recited claim 1 is not
limited to areas which can function as a golf bag tag.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007