Appeal No. 2001-0552
Application No. 09/277,412
Discussion
We appreciate that during examination proceedings, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation, and limitations are not to be read into them from the
specification. In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir.
2000), In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In the present instance, it appears that the examiner proposes to isolate the side portions
of the outer panel 1 of Habdas from the remainder of the outer panel, and then link those
isolated side portions with the inner panel 2 in order to create a facsimile of the claimed
door assembly, namely, a “door” comprising “a door panel” (Habdas element 2), a pair of
elongated members (the above noted side portions of the outer panel 2), shaft means
(Habdas element 5), and means for restricting (Habdas elements 13). This hindsight
reconstruction of Habdas in light of appellant’s claims is strained and unreasonable. The
examiner cannot arbitrarily reconstruct a reference in order to read the claim on the
reference structure. In the first place, the side portions of Habdas that house the pivot pins
5, latch pins 12, and pivots 11 are an integral part of
the outer panel 1 (“tailgate”) and not the inner panel 2 (“door”), notwithstanding the
examiner’s view to the contrary. Second, terms in a claim should be interpreted in a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007