Appeal No. 2006-0542 Page 9
Application No. 10/054,083
figures, and particularly Fig. 1 of Tondreault, it is seen that the walls of the connector do
not have any holes formed therethrough." (Appeal Br. at 10.)
1. Claim Construction
"[L]imitations are not to be read into the claims 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)). Here, contrary to
the appellants' argument, claim 14 does not specify a hole formed "through" a connector
wall. To the contrary, the representative claim recites in pertinent part the following
limitations: "a first case attached to a first end of the connector, the first case having first
and second opposing planar surfaces defining a channel therebetween, and having a
hole formed in each planar surface. . . ." Giving claim 14 its broadest, reasonable
construction, the limitations require holes formed in opposing walls of a connector.
2. Obviousness Determination
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007