Appeal No. 2000-0450 Application No. 09/047,048 over the prior art, rather than a structural limitation. Cf. In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003, 1006, 158 USPQ 266, 268 (CCPA 1968) and In re Gregg, 244 F.2d 316, 317, 113 USPQ 526, 529 (CCPA 1957) ("it is well settled that claims drawn to structure cannot be allowed unless they recite some structural difference over the prior art"). As for the claimed bracket, Matthysse discloses the bracket 15 attached to supporting structure 12. Finally, with regard to appellants' argument that the Matthysse bracket does not allow vertical adjustment of the pipe, claim 10 recites "in said locked position said locking portion . . . securing said pipe in a vertical position, in said unlocked position said locking portion allowing vertical movement of said pipe." Giving this language its broadest reasonable interpretation, and not reading limitations thereinto from the specification, In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1993), we consider it to be readable on Matthysse. The bracket 10 of Matthysse secures pipe 18 in a vertical position in the sense that the 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007