Appeal No. 2003-0240 Page 4
Application No. 09/435,507
their broadest reasonable interpretation3 and limitations are not to be read into the claims
from the specification.4
In view of the above, the appellant's argument that the anticipation rejection is
improper is unconvincing.
In light of the foregoing, the appellant's request for rehearing is granted to the extent
of reconsidering our decision, but is denied with respect to making any change thereto.
3 See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Sneed,
710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
4 See 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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007