Appeal No. 2006-0376
Application No. 09/971,866
with the addition of wheels thereto, to make the cooking apparatus of
US4282853 (REYNOLDS) to be in the form of a readily portable or
movable “cart”.
Further, on page 9 of the answer, the examiner states:
[A]lthough Appellant’s claims characterize the invention as a “grilling
apparatus”, including a “grill” disposed in a grill housing, Appellant’s claims
lack any further limitations, or structure, which would distinguish the
claimed invention from the cooking surfaces (G1, G2) of the cooking
apparatus (i.e. - “broiler”) of US4282853 (REYNOLDS). A person having
ordinary skill in the art of apparatus used for cooking would have, at the
time of the invention, made no distinction between the broadly recited term
“grill” of the claimed invention and the heated “broiling” surfaces (G1, G2)
of US4282853 (REYNOLDS). The term “grill” meaning to “broil on a open
grill or a griddle” (Webster’s Third New International ® Dictionary,
Unabridged, Copyright © Merriam Webster)
We first consider the scope of the claim. We concur with the examiner’s
claim interpretation. In analyzing the scope of the claim, office personnel must
rely on appellant’s disclosure to properly determine the meaning of the terms
used in the claims. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 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). Claim 1 includes the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007