Appeal No. 1998-0241 Page 9
Application No. 08/465,373
Beachcombers Int’l, Inc. v. WildeWood Creative Prods., Inc., 31 F.3d 1154, 1158, 31
USPQ2d 1653, 1656 (Fed. Cir. 1994). On the other hand, 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).
The term "sound" is broadly defined as "an alteration of properties of an elastic
medium, such as pressure, particle displacement, or density, that propagates through the
medium, or a superposition of such alterations" (Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms,
Second Edition (McGraw-Hill 1978)). While the appellants' specification discloses a particular
sound application wherein the sound is produced using a resonator tube, the specification does
not clearly set forth a definition of "sound" which differs from the conventional definition set
forth above. Accordingly, we agree with the examiner that the step in Troth's method of
periodically applying deflection air streams, whereby, as described by the appellants (brief,
page 7), "the fibers are deflected by the action of air or other fluids which are periodically
moved toward the fibers so that they impinge on the fibers," meets the broad definition of
"sound." We see nothing in the appellants' specification which defines "sound" so as to7
preclude propagation of pressure or particle displacement produced by a fluid stream.
7This panel reached the same conclusion with regard to this issue in the related appeal in application No.
08/236,067 (appeal No. 97-2328), in which a decision affirming the examiner's prior art rejections was mailed on
May 26, 1999.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007