Appeal No. 2001-1763
Application 08/899,434
appeal of a relationship between the cut tape and the tape
sealing mechanism, and therefore we cannot agree with appellant
that the claims require that the tension of the tape is
maintained during sealing. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(the PTO must apply to
the verbiage of the claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the
words in their ordinary usage, as understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art and defined by the specification). However, it
is incorrect to read unwritten limitations into pending claims
contrary to the plain words of those claims. See In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 322, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See
also In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1405, 162 USPQ 541, 551 (CCPA
1969)(During pendency of an application, limitations are not to
be read from the specification into the claims).
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Answer,
we determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case
of obviousness in view of the reference evidence. Based on the
totality of the record, including due consideration of
appellant’s argument, we determine that the preponderance of
evidence weighs most heavily in favor of obviousness within the
meaning of section 103. Accordingly, we affirm all of the
examiner’s rejections on appeal.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007