Appeal No. 98-2109
Application No. 08/500,315
as their terms reasonably allow, and that limitations
appearing in the specification may not be read into the
claims. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322
(Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ
541, 550 (CCPA 1969). Here, all that claim 1 specifies is
that the product is "located upon a product support surface,"
and does not require that the product be supported at the
point where it is being cut. Driver’s liner 35, the product
being cut, is located upon the surface of pipe 30 which
supports it; therefore, interpretating the limitation in
question as broadly as reasonable, it is met by Driver, even
though Driver’s liner 35 is not supported (i.e., backed up) by
pipe 30 at the point where it is being cut by the liquid from
nozzle 604. If this limitation is superfluous, as argued by
appellant, that is simply an indication of its breadth.
Turning to the second limitation in dispute, the examiner
argues (answer, pages 5 and 6):
[t]he phrase "to deflect the liquid-jet
stream . . . . ." should not be construed as
defining structure. It does not describe any
structure; it merely expresses what the disk is
desired to do. However, it has well been
established that, a recitation of the intended
use of the claimed invention must result in a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007