Appeal No. 1998-1655 Page 8
Application No. 08/367,766
Here, the appellants neither allege that claims 1, 11,
and 20 do not stand or fall together nor explain whether the
claims are believed separately patentable. Therefore, claims
1, 11, and 20 stand or fall together as a group. We select
claim 1 to represent the group.
The appellants argue, "[t]here is simply no teaching to
press together the first and second main surfaces of the
cartridge for any reason." (Appeal Br. at 11.) The examiner
responds, "[t]he support means is shown to include at least 9,
9', 10, 10' (shown in FIGs. 3, 26) and the biasing means
includes 51, 51' and another spring (not shown in FIG. 6, but
discussed in col. 3, lines 42-47) which means is considered to
facilitate a pressing force to hold and press together the
first and second main surfaces of the cartridge." (Examiner's
Answer at 7.)
“In the patentability context, claims are to be given
their broadest reasonable interpretations. Moreover,
limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007