Appeal No. 2002-2111
Application 09/664,674
term “outwardly” is then differentiated from the term
“downwardly” also recited in independent claim 1? The
terms “downwardly” and “outwardly” are utilized to
provide distinct structural limitations to claim 1 of
varying scope, and should be ascribed with such.
Appellants acknowledge and have acknowledged that the
handles of Hill extend downwardly, but have maintained
that the handles do not extend outwardly, as required
in claim 1. The handles in Hill are shown in Figures 2
and 5 as curving downwardly and substantially parallel
to each other. In contrast, as can be seen in Figures
7 and 8 of the present application, the handles 33 are
curved downwardly and are outwardly pointed in
substantially opposite directions, save the angle
produced with respect to the front plane of the frame.
It is submitted that while the handles of the present
invention and Hill and Curran all generally fall within
the scope of the Board’s broad phrase “to the rear of
the body assembly,” it is inappropriate to assume that
therefore the prior art in Hill and/or Curran also
teach or suggest that the handles extend “downwardly”
and “outwardly” as in claim 1 [request, page 2].
This line of argument is unpersuasive because it is not
commensurate with the actual scope of the claim limitation in
question. In the patentability context, claims are to be given
their broadest reasonable interpretation, and limitations are not
to be read into the claims from the specification. In re Van
Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir.
1993). As conceded by the appellants, Hill’s handlebars (handle
tubes 38 and arcuate handles 42) extend downwardly. They also
extend outwardly at an angle with respect to a front plane of the
frame assembly in the sense broadly claimed in that they extend
to the rear of the frame or body assembly 12 at an angle of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007