Appeal No. 2005-1765
Application No. 10/208,077
The examiner’s statement of the rejection is set forth on page 3 of the
answer. The examiner states on page 4 of the answer, “although the claim
requires that the contact points press against each other, this does not
necessarily require direct or physical contact.” Further, the examiner maintains
that Nelson’s contacts do press against each other.
We concur with the examiner’s rationale. Claims will be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification; limitations
appearing in the specification will not be read into the claims. In re Etter, 756
F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In analyzing the scope of the
claim, office personnel must rely on the appellant’s disclosure to properly
determine the meaning of the terms used in the claims. Markman v. Westview
Instruments, Inc., 52 F3d 967, 980, 34 USPQ2d 1321, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
“[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim ‘is not to be confused with
adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is
improper.’” (emphasis original) In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301 F.3d
1343, 1348, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1205, (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Intervet America
Inc v. Kee-Vet Laboratories Inc., 887 F.2d 1050, 1053, 12 USPQ2d 1474, 1476
(Fed. Cir. 1989)). Appellants’ specification does not define “press against”, and
appellants’ have not contested the examiner’s interpretation of the claim term as
not requiring direct contact. Thus, the examiner has found, and we concur, that
the claim term “press against” includes, indirectly pressing against, i.e. through
an intermediary. Accordingly, we consider the scope of claim 1’s limitation of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007