Appeal No. 1998-1192
Application 08/456,093
to a stator support. Presumably, the appellants would have us
read these limitations into claim 13 to distinguish over the
stator winding machine disclosed by Santandrea ‘228. It is
well settled, however, that during patent examination claims
are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the underlying specification without reading
limitations from the specification into the claims. In re
Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA
1969). When given its broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, the roller limitation in
claim 13 does indeed read on the roller 47 disclosed by
Santandrea ‘228. The narrower interpretation urged by the
appellants rests on an improper reading of limitations from
the specification into the claim.
Claims 41 and 60 recite stator winding methods
comprising, inter alia, the step of “winding” a stator with at
least one coil of wire. In our decision (see pages 16, 17 and
21), we determined that these winding step limitations are not
step plus function recitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth
paragraph, because they embody acts without function, and that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007