Appeal No. 2004-0765
Application 09/732,641
including an integral means for axially retaining the handle on
the hub such as a plurality of fingers. The appellant’s
arguments are unpersuasive.
While we understand that Mark’s assembly includes a
number of individual components in excess of two, nevertheless
it is appropriate to consider patentee’s construction as a “two
piece” hub and handle assembly in accordance with the appealed
claims. This is because it is proper to regard one piece as
patentee’s hub 40 and the other piece as patentee’s handle
subassembly 36, 38, 52, 84 and 42 (which subassembly inter-
connects with the aforementioned hub 40). Concerning this handle
subassembly, we here emphasize that nothing in the appellant’s
appealed independent claims excludes an embodiment wherein the
here claimed handle comprises a subassembly of multiple
components. Further in this regard, the appellant is reminded
that, during examination proceedings, claims are to be given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification (In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000)) and that limitations from the specifica-
tion are not to be read into the claims (Comack Communications,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007