Appeal No. 1999-1747 Page 8
Application No. 08/715,422
Furthermore, the general claim construction principle
that limitations found only in the specification of a patent
or patent application should not be imported or read into a
claim must be followed. See In re Priest, 582 F.2d 33, 37,
199 USPQ 11, 15 (CCPA 1978). One must be careful not to
confuse impermissible imputing of limitations from the
specification into a claim with the proper reference to the
specification to determine the meaning of a particular word or
phrase recited in a claim. See E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.
v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433, 7 USPQ2d 1129,
1131 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 986 (1988). What we
are dealing with in this case is the proper construction of
the limitations recited in appealed claim 1.
Claim 1 reads as follows:
A quick connect coupling for connecting a brake hose
to a brake tube in a hydraulic brake hose assembly,
wherein the brake hose has an inside diameter in the
range of about 1/8 inch to 3/16 inch, comprising:
a connector body having a first end for crimped
connection to the brake hose and a second end for
connection to the brake tube;
a resilient retaining element extending between the
brake tube and connector body;
a stepped bore in the second end of the body for
receiving the brake tube, the stepped bore including a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007