Appeal No. 2001-0154
Application No. 08/838,266
It is the position of the examiner that:
Corcoran discloses a bracket system comprising a
bracket 2 with opposed channels having received
therein a curtain rod adapter including a plate 40
and a T-shaped rod receiving member 54 adapted to
receive a valance 60 which responds to a curtain rod
for the valence 60 supports a cloth covering.
[examiner’s answer at page 4].
Appellant argues that Corcoran does not disclose a bracket
having a curtain rod adaptor shaped to receive an end of a
curtain rod. The examiner responds:
Corcoran discloses the rod receiving member 54 as
supporting a valance which has curved ends 62,64
which are slid over the arms 56, 58 of the clip 54.
The valance is cloth covered for aesthetic purposes.
Inasmuch as the valance is disclosed as supporting a
cloth it fully functions as a curtain rod for
curtain rods support cloth coverings for various
purposes including that for aesthetics. [examiner’s
answer at page 5].
While it is true that the claims in a patent application
are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification during the prosecution of a
patent application (see In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)) and limitations from a
pending application’s specification will not be read into the
claims (see Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1582, 6 USPQ2d
2020, 2027
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007