Appeal 2007-1529
Application 10/385,722
Appellants refer to Table 1 of the Specification (p. 11) in support of
their argument that the AZ or AM alloys of representative claim 8 require
magnesium alloys including Al, Zn, and Mn, or Al and Mn, respectively,
which each exclude non-trace amounts of calcium (Br. 9-11 and Reply Br.
6-8). Our review of Specification Table 1 reveals that a componential
analysis of AZ91, AZ81, AZ71, AZ61, AZ51, AZ41, AZ31, and AZ21
alloys is furnished. Specification Table 1 does not show the presence of
calcium in any of these specific alloys. Appellants do not point out, nor do
we find where the composition of any specific AM alloys is identified in the
subject Specification.
Additionally, Appellants refer to Comparative Example 3 of EP ‘901
for showing that the ASTM AZ91D Equivalent alloy employed in that
comparison Example does not include calcium (Reply Br. 7).
In proceedings before the PTO, 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).
However, limitations 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, representative claim 8 is not limited to any of the specific AZ
alloys having the compositions identified in Specification Table 1 or
Comparison Example 3 of EP ‘901. Nor have Appellants furnished
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013