Appeal No. 1999-1491
Application No. 08/386,670
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification
and limitations of the specification should not be read into
the claims where no express statement of limitation is
included in the claim. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-
05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969). Appellant has not
specifically claimed any particulars of the securement
arrangement. “Secured” is simply defined as: to be made fast2
and certainly, Kelly’s teaching meets that definition.
Furthermore, we find adequate motivation to secure Ledesma's
pad to the support structure in view of Kelly's teachings,
especially from the standpoint of safety, in the event that a
patient under anesthesia needs to be maneuvered without danger
of the cushion sliding, or that the patient partially regains
consciousness and has some involuntary movement. We affirm
the examiner’s rejection of claim 8. Since claim 9 falls with
claim 8, we affirm the rejection of claim 9 also. Appellant
has stated that independent claim 23 is separately patentable,
but argues the rejection of claim 23 with claim 8. Since the
issue appellant argues is the anchoring structure and is the
2Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1990.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007