Appeal No. 1998-1430
Application No. 08/376,298
words “sheet” and “indentations” appearing in the claims.
Appellant also argues (reply brief, pages 1-2) that the
examiner’s construction of these terms is inconsistent with
appellant’s specification and improperly overbroad. In
responding to appellant’s arguments, the examiner contends
(answer, pages 7-9) that the terms “sheet” and “indentations”
appearing in the appealed claims are sufficiently broad to
read on the noted components of the insert member 22 of
Derderian.
While it is true that the claims in a patent application
are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with a specification (In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)), and that
limitations from a pending application’s specification will
not be read into the claims during prosecution of a patent
application (Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581-82, 6
USPQ2d 2020, 2027 (Fed. Cir. 1988), it is also well settled
that terms in a claim should be construed in a manner
consistent with the specification and construed as those
skilled in the art would construe them (see In re Bond, 910
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007