Appeal No. 1999-2092 Page 10
Application No. 08/798,718
preformed tear seam 46 leading to second tearing edge 50 from
the horizontally disposed portion of Salvadori's preformed
tear seam 46).
The argument (brief, pp. 5-6) presented by the appellant
does not convince us that the subject matter of claim 42 is
novel. First, as set forth above, we discern no difference
between claim 42 and the teachings of Salvadori. Second, we
disagree with the appellant's position that for Salvadori to
anticipate claim 42, Salvadori must disclose a margin "as
shown in our drawings or in some form equivalent thereto." It
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.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007