Appeal No. 2004-1571
Application 10/116,027
recited floor panel to be a one piece structure, the appellant
submits that “claim 1 is only directed to one piece, namely a
‘floor panel for a vehicle’” (reply brief, page 4).
During patent examination, claims are 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). Claim 1, given its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the underlying specification, does
not require the claimed floor panel to be one piece. The
appellant’s position to the contrary rests on an improper reading
of limitations from the specification into the claim. Indeed,
the underlying specification actually indicates that while a one
piece floor panel is preferred, a multiple piece floor panel is
also contemplated:
a cross portion 6 of the floor tunnel 3 and the
protrusion portion 5 are protruded more than any other
portion of the floor panel 3 for increasing the
rigidity of the cross portion 6. It is preferred that
the cross portion 6 be formed of one plate by molding
press, but the cross po[r]tion 6 may be formed by
welding another plate or other known mechanical and
chemical joining techniques [specification, page 5].
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007