Ex Parte Rogers - Page 7

                Appeal 2007-0514                                                                             
                Application 10/394,641                                                                       
                      During examination of a patent application, claims are given their                     
                broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification.  In re                   
                Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 320-21, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).                          
                Further, while claims are read in light of the specification, specification                  
                limitations are not read into the claims.  Id.  Here, Appellant has not                      
                explained why the Examiner's interpretation of the claim term "lip" is in                    
                error or is inconsistent with Appellant's specification.  Moreover, as noted                 
                by the Examiner, the claimed "lip" does not require any particular type of                   
                sloping or overlapping, e.g., that there be a continuous slope from the outer                
                edge of the lip to where the lip meets the main body of the mat.  Therefore,                 
                Appellant's argument that Seaux fails to describe "overlapping sloping lips"                 
                is not convincing.  Furthermore, Appellant's argument that Seaux fails to                    
                describe the chamfered peripheral edges of the upper and lower half-pieces                   
                of the mat as part of the peripheral extension does not persuade us otherwise.               
                Insofar as Seaux describes the edges of the mat half-pieces as forming the                   
                peripheral edges and the edges of the mat half-pieces as being chamfered,                    
                Seaux describes the peripheral edges as being chamfered. Accordingly, we                     
                affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 and 3 under § 102(e)                  
                as anticipated by Seaux.                                                                     
                      As to claim 2, Appellant argues that Seaux does not describe an                        
                integral joint (i.e., claim 2 requires that "the attachment means is a                       
                composite integral fit joint, a snap fit joint or an integral design feature joint           
                in which the joint is held together by material interference with the                        
                contacting surfaces of the overlapping lips") (Brief, p. 8, para. 2).                        
                According to Appellant, the claimed integral joint does not require any                      
                separate attachment devices, e.g., stakes, pegs or other clamping means, as                  
                described by Seaux, to keep individual mats with sloped lips from sliding                    

                                                     7                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013