Appeal No. 2006-2108
Application No. 10/392,418
pages 7-9; reply brief, pages 2-3 and 6) and that “the
specification clearly states that the subject invention is
utilized in a vehicle that includes emission components, brake
components, etc.” (brief, page 8).
The examiner argues that each of the references in the
appellants’ specification to motor vehicle components is merely
exemplary and that, therefore, the specification does not limit
the term “vehicle” to a motor vehicle (answer, page 9). Indeed,
the specification refers to “a vehicle component such as an air
intake manifold induction component or other similar component”
(¶ 12), and states that the hose “can be configured to conduct
air, hydraulic fluid, brake fluid, emission gases, etc.” (¶ 25)
and that “emission components, brake components, air induction
components, intake manifold components, fuel components, etc.,
which require hose attachments can utilize the subject connector
assembly 16” (¶ 25). The “such as”, “can be” and “can utilize”
indicate that the term “vehicle” is not limited by the
specification.
During patent prosecution, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, as the claim language would have been read by one
of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007