Appeal No. 1998-1533 Page 20
Application No. 08/411,202
To apply the meaning sought by the appellants would, in our 7
view, be improperly reading limitations from the specification
into the claims.8
Since the combined teachings of Hummel and Feldmann would
have made it obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the
claimed invention for the reasons set forth above, the
decision of the examiner to reject claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 is affirmed.
Claim 6
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
Dependent claim 6 reads as follows:
7The appellants argue that the meaning should be that the
total width of all the friction pad members is less than about
1/12 of the circumferential length of the disc rotor.
8Limitations 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 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007