Appeal No. 1999-1751 Page 9
Application No. 08/814,299
Laverriere clearly teaches that his foam 3 permits suction to
pass in addition to the openings 4. Moreover, claim 30 only 4
requires the foam member to be porous, which is met by
openings 4 in the foam 3 as well as the foam 3 being an open
cell foam.
Third, the appellant argues that Laverriere lacks both
the
radially-oriented surface and the porous foam member overlying
the radially-oriented surface as set forth in claim 30. We do
not agree. It is our determination that when the phrase
radially-oriented surface is given its broadest reasonable
meaning, that limitation is readable on Laverriere's5
4See column 4, lines 29-39.
5It is well settled 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007