Appeal No. 1999-0272 Page 9
Application No. 08/605,212
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 7-8; reply brief, pp. 3-
5 and 6-7) that the above-noted limitation of claim 16 is not
taught or suggested by the teachings of either Ward or
Gurevich. We do not agree since it is our opinion that the
above-noted limitation of claim 16 is taught by Ward and
Gurevich for the reasons that follow.
The "separate powered drive coupled to each said shear
arm" as recited in claim 16 is not recited in means-plus-
function format. Accordingly, it is appropriate to apply the
broadest reasonable meaning to the word "drive" as in its
ordinary usage as it would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment
by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the
written description contained in the appellants'
specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d
1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Moreover,
limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007