Appeal No. 1998-1266 Page 5
Application No. 08/354,459
Appellants’ argument as quoted supra is not persuasive
inasmuch as claim 5 is not limited to a tool movement that is
“parallel” in any respect, much less movement of the tool in a
direction “parallel” to the laminae of the composite material.
In this regard, it is well established patent law that
features not claimed may not be relied upon to support
patentability. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1350-51, 231
USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982) and In re Richards, 187 F.2d 643, 645,
89 USPQ 64, 66 (CCPA 1951).
Rather than requiring the direction of tool movement to
be parallel (e.g., in a direction extending radially of the
formed hole and hence in a plane parallel to the laminae of
the composite material), claim 5 merely recites that the tool
is moved “relative to the edge of the formed hole” and that
such movement is “dependent on a radial extent of any physical
defects in the composite material . . .” When this claim
language is given its broadest reasonable interpretation (See
In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed.
Cir. 1989)) without reading limitations from the specification
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007