Appeal No. 99-0637 Page 7
Application No. 08/711,841
and illustrated but not identified in Figure 4, does prevent
the tubing (12) from extending all the way through the
ferrule. We also note, however, 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). The term "adjacent" is defined
as "near or close, next or contiguous" and the term
"contiguous" is defined as "in close proximity without
actually touching" (The Random House College Dictionary
(Random House 1973)). In our opinion, the forward end of the
tubing (12) is "adjacent" the flat forward face of the ferrule
(24), as required by claim 3.
With regard to claim 12, we do not find appellants'
argument that Anderson does not disclose the "means" recited
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007