Appeal No. 1997-3255
Application 08/199,455
We consider appellants’ arguments to be more specific than the requirements of Claim 1.
Claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution, and the scope
of a claim cannot be narrowed by reading disclosed limitations into the claim. See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ 541, 550
(CCPA 1969).
The normal definition of “lateral” is “of or relating to the side : situated on, directed
toward, or coming from the side.” Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1990.
Appellants argue that the submitted interpretation is required because “original claim 3 [sic;
presumably, original Figure 3] shows the ‘non-circularly symmetric lateral cross section’ of the
front portion of the member....” (Reply Brief, page 3.) Appellants also refer to page 4, lines 14
through 17 of the specification. (Id.)
However, appellants’ disclosure, including the identified portion of the written
description, does not define “lateral” as anything different from its accepted meaning. We do not
agree that the cross section is required to be “transverse” or “perpendicular” to the longitudinal
axis. In addition to the examiner’s finding that the relevant language of Claim 1 reads on a
“lateral” cross section in Isaacs which includes the longitudinal axis, we note that a “lateral”
cross section may also denote a cross section that is to the side of, and parallel with, the central
cross section extending along the longitudinal axis. Since appellants have not shown the
- 4 -4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007