Appeal No. 98-3354 Page 7
Application No. 08/427,743
plastic body material around the hole 60 and remove
the weight from cavity 59. The aluminum weight can
then be replaced with a similar weight made from
lead, so the heavier weight will sink the lure to a
greater depth. Similar results can be achieved by
using smaller or larger weights made from the same
metal. This change is lure depth or action achieved
by changing weights does not require that the
fisherman untie and retie the fish line connected to
the lure. [Pages 6 and 7.]
The member 60 of Guzik, however, is a resilient, elastic
member that protrudes from the tubular body and bends as the
lure moves through the water to produce different sonic effects
(see, generally, column 3, and Fig. 7). While it is true that
the claims in a patent application are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
specification (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
during prosecution of a patent application (Sjolund v. Musland,
847 F.2d 1573, 1581-82, 6 USPQ2d 2020, 2027 (Fed. Cir. 1988)),
it is also well settled that terms in a claim should be
construed in a manner consistent with the specification and
construed as those skilled in the art would construe them (see
In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007