Appeal No. 2004-1361 Application No. 09/430,574 connecting block on Schnell’s retainer member 172, and more particularly on the clamp attachment region 174 of the retainer member, and the limitations relating to the tube on Schnell’s fluid-bearing tube. As framed and argued by the appellant (see pages 4 through 8 in the brief), the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is unsound for three reasons: (1) Schnell’s retainer member 172 and clamp attachment region 174 do not constitute a “female” connecting block, (2) the tapered portion 188 of Schnell’s tube is not “seated against” the transition surface defined by the intersection of the throughbore 184 and chamfer 198 of the female connecting block, and (3) the end 179 of Schnell’s tube does not constitute an “end-form.” The appellant’s position here is not persuasive, essentially because it rests on an improper reading of limitations from the specification into claim 1. It is well settled that during patent examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the underlying specification without reading limitations from the specification into the claims. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969). 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007