Appeal No. 2003-1390
Application No. 08/989,342
and 46-50. Accordingly, we are again in agreement with appellant
that Lopez does not teach a template for creating a three-
dimensional design and, therefore, cannot anticipate the present
invention.
The rejection is reversed.
3. Rejection of claims 1, 14-17 and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as anticipated by Nakanishi.
Nakanishi discloses a rugged shaped sheet for use, for
example, in forming a lowermost layer of a shoe sole. Appellant
argues that Nakanishi utilizes materials such as iron in the
template which would “impede maneuverability and tire a worker
using such a template” such that Nakanishi’s template cannot
anticipate the present claims. See appeal brief, pages 18-19.
We do not find appellant’s argument persuasive. In making a
patentability determination, the relevant inquiry is, “what is
the invention claimed?” Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810
F.2d 1561, 1567-68, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert
denied, 481 U.S. 1052 (1987). “[L]imitations appearing in the
specification will not be read into claims, and . . .
interpreting what is meant by a word in a claim ‘is not to be
confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the
specification, which is improper.’" In re Cruciferous Sprout
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007