Appeal No. 2000-0310
Application 08/848,759
connector and the end cap, the connectors grip the rubber seal
ring (answer, pages 3-5).
During patent prosecution, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, as the claim language would have been read by
one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification
and prior art. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d
1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548,
218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549,
551, 190 USPQ 461, 463 (CCPA 1976); In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d
545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976). Limitations,
however, are not to be read from the specification into the
claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1405, 162 USPQ 541,
551 (CCPA 1969).
The appellant’s specification indicates that “gripped” in
the appellant’s claims means that the insulator ring is
actually grasped by the first and second inserts themselves.
As shown in the appellant’s figure 3, the insulator ring (44)
is grasped from the right by the first threaded insert (33) at
o-ring 50 and from the left by the second threaded insert (46)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007