Appeal No. 2004-2335 Page 4
Application No. 09/867,495
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The specification (p. 5) informs us that this invention
has a bungi cord 2 which has a hook 4 secured to an enlarged end 3 of the bungi
cord in the conventional manner. The other end of the bungi cord is secured, in
any conventional manner to a clasp 5. The clasp 5 is shown in more detail in
FIG. 3. The clasp 5 has a pair of jaws 6, 7 which are pivoted together at 8, so the
jaws can be moved toward and away from each other. Each of the jaws 6, 7 have
a plurality of teeth 9 which will dig into an object from opposite sides and thereby
secure the clasp firmly to the object. Since the clasp 5 of the present invention
does not need an aperture or a ledge, or some other form of support that the
conventional hook 4 needs in order to secure the hook to a support, the clasp 5
of the present invention, is much more versatile than the conventional hook 4.
It is axiomatic that, in proceedings before the USPTO, claims in an application
are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification,
and that claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218
USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). While the claim must be interpreted consistent with
the specification, limitations should not be read into the claim from the specification. In
re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993) citing In
re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007