Appeal No. 2001-2681
Application No. 09/167,295
60a). The examiner explains (answer, pages 12 through
20) that the term “interface” when broadly defined does
not necessarily require two separate bodies but could be
a thermal “interface” separating different temperature
regions in holding pad 60. We agree with the examiner’s
reasoning that the term “interface” does not necessarily
require two different bodies. Nothing in claim 1 on
appeal precludes the reading of a “second thermal
interface” on different thermal regions that reside in
the unitary holding pad 60.
Appellants now argue (request, page 4) that “the term
interface, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, requires
two or more separate bodies.” We disagree. The reading of a claim
in light of the specification to interpret broadly worded
limitations explicitly recited in the claim is a quite different
thing from reading limitations of the specification into a claim to
thereby narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding
disclosed limitations which have no express basis in the claim. In
re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969). Thus, we still
maintain that a second thermal interface1 can be the different
thermal regions that lie within the unitary holding pad 60.
Appellants’ request has been granted to the extent that our
decision has been reconsidered, but such request is denied with
respect to making any modifications to the decision.
1 As the attached definition indicates, an “interface” can
be an area in a material where regions meet.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007