Appeal No. 1998-3007 Page 9
Application No. 08/690,994
Second, it is our opinion that Cole's slightly concave
surface 38 is formed in the front end and in the top of front
section 37. The term "top" in claim 12 must be given its
broadest reasonable meaning. Thus, we conclude that the3
"top" of the head section as used in claim 12 means an upper
portion of the head section. In reading claim 12 on Cole's
Figure 3 we note that the "top" of front section 37 is
considered to be the portion of front section 37 above the
level of the eye. Accordingly, Cole's slightly concave
surface 38 is formed in both the top of front section 37 and
in the front end of the front section 37.
Similarly, it is our determination that the claimed term
"scoop" is readable on Cole's slightly concave surface 38. As
3It 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
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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007