Appeal No. 2004-2335 Page 9
Application No. 09/867,495
Frankfort, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting.
Although my colleagues in the majority have recognized on page 4 of their
opinion that during patent examination limitations should not be read into the pending
claims from the specification, it is my view that they have done exactly that in construing
independent claim 5 on appeal to require the securing means recited therein to be
"attached to the second end of the elastic cord, i.e., as disclosed" (decision, p. 5) and
"part of the elastic cord" (decision, p. 6). For that reason, I must respectfully dissent
from their decision reversing the examiner's rejections of claims 4 and 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
In pertinent part, independent claim 5 is directed to a bungi (bungee) cord
comprising: an elastic cord having first and second ends, said first end having a hook
secured thereto, and said second end "having means for securing said second end to a
support." Claim 5 goes on to specify exactly what structure constitutes the means for
securing and, as found by the examiner (answer, pages 4-5), thereby removes the
recited element from the purview of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. More particularly,
claim 5 essentially goes on to describe the means for securing as being a spring-biased
clasp or clip of the type seen in Figure 3 of the application.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007