Appeal No. 1998-1562 Page 11
Application No. 08/611,416
the core 18 and paper web 19 thereon toward the working
position in an arcuate manner during its pivoting movement).
The appellants' argue (brief, pp. 11-12) that claim 1 is
not anticipated by Johannsson. Specifically, the appellants
argue that (1) Johannsson is not directed to a lap processing
machine, and (2) Johannsson lacks the claimed "means for
moving." We do not agree.
As set forth above, the claimed "means for moving" is
readable on the apparatus disclosed by Johannsson. In
addition, the claimed "lap processing machine" is also
readable on the apparatus disclosed by Johannsson. In that 6
regard, it is axiomatic that, 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
6We note that the appellants provided no evidence or
reasoning to support their argument that Johannsson is not
directed to a lap processing machine.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007