Appeal No. 2001-1380
Application No. 09/138,998
recite any specific linkage. These claims merely set forth the
particular way a lid moves relative to a body.
Appellants’ main argument is directed to whether one may
consider the lid disclosed by Akutagawa a “lid,” as claimed,
because the lid in Akutagawa is not situated on top of the
housing but, rather is more akin to a front cover. It is
appellants’ position that the front cover, described as a “lid”
in the Akutagawa translation, is not the same as the lid
contemplated by appellants and described in the instant
specification.
After careful review of the record, we find ourselves in
agreement with the examiner. While we understand the structural
differences between the lid described in the instant
specification and the lid described in Akutagawa, we agree with
the examiner that nothing in either claim 3 or 4 requires the
claimed lid to be atop the housing, rather than constituting a
front cover, as depicted by Akutagawa.
While appellants point to the instant specification as
support for their contention that we must construe the lid as
being a closure for a top opening, we must not read limitations
from the specification into the claims when the terms used in the
claims are clear. We further note that the claimed “lid” is not
-4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007