Appeal No. 98-2150
Application No. 08/539,926
reference surface could be for anything (e.g., simply a
reference surface that defines an endpoint of the primary
sealing surface and/or the secondary sealing surface).
Moreover, even if representative claim 1 did recite that the
reference surface was used "for machining the primary and
secondary sealing surfaces," we must point out that
representative claim 1 is directed to a system for sealing,
and not to a method of making such a system. Accordingly,
such a limitation would merely be a statement of intended use
which would not patentably distinguish the subject matter
defined by representative claim 1 over the teachings of
Szymczak inasmuch as Szymczak's reference surface clearly
would have the capability of being used in such a manner.
See, e.g., In re Schreiber, supra.
3(...continued)
be given its broadest reasonable interpretation (In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and
In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed.
Cir. 1989)) and limitations from a pending application's
specification will not be read into the claims (Sjolund v.
Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581-82, 6 USPQ2d 2020, 2027 (Fed.
Cir. 1988)).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007