Appeal 2007-1214
Application 10/272,270
Appellants argue that claim 3 is separately patentable because, “while
Buckley discloses circular, oval and triangular coil springs, he does not
disclose rectangular coil springs” (Br. 7). The Examiner asserts that claim 3
encompasses ovoid springs “to the broad degree claimed” (Answer 5).
We note that “obviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a
claim,” CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342, 68
USPQ2d 1940, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Claim 3 recites that the spring has “a
cross section, taken in said plane, that is rectangular.”
It is well settled that “claims in an application are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and that
claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544,
1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citation omitted).
As noted by the Examiner (Answer 4), the Drawings do not depict a
rectangular spring. The only portion of the Specification explaining the
language in claim 3 states:
Although ovoid-shaped springs are somewhat easier to
manufacture, springs closer to true rectangles can also be used,
as sold by DRACO Spring Mfg. Co. . . . The details of this
spring and the manufacturing process thereof have been
disclosed in a separate patent application now pending, U.S.
Serial No. 10/124,497, filed July 3, 2002, herein incorporated
by reference.
(Specification 10, emphasis added.)
The ‘497 application (actually filed on April 17, 2002) discloses “[a]
coil spring having a substantially circular arc on two sides and a flattened
opposite side” (‘497 application, abstract). Figure 3 of the ‘497 application
is reproduced below:
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013