Appeal No. 1997-2508
Application 08/329,463
We affirm the examiner’s rejection of claims 4 through 6.
Claims on appeal are interpreted as broadly as their
terms allow, without reading limitations from the
specification into the claims. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) and Sjolund v.
Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581-1582, 6 USPQ2d 2020, 2027 (Fed.
Cir. 1988). Thus, we comprehend the subject matter of claims
4 and 6 as clearly and broadly encompassing at least two
magnets only circumferentially spaced and not axially spaced,
and as permitting other magnets within the frame to be present
and spaced therefrom.
Applying the test for obviousness, while taking into 4
account our above understanding of the content of appellant’s
claimed subject matter, we reach the conclusion that it would
4The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007