Appeal 2007-2027
Application 10/210,269
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. We note that
Appellant’s drawings depict athletic cups in which the outer hard cage
portion appears to expose more of the underlying resilient portion than the
apertures 56 of Lukens’s cup. See Specification, Figures 1 to 3; see also
Lukens, Figure 1. Appellant appears to read the language in claim 1 “shaped
as an open cage” to encompass only barred enclosures similar to those
depicted in Figures 1 to 3, rather than the apertured structure of Lukens’ cup.
However, “while it is true that claims are to be interpreted in light of
the specification . . . , it does not follow that limitations from the
specification may be read into the claims. . . . It is the claims that measure
the invention.” Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1582, 6 USPQ2d 2020,
2027 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Here, Appellant’s claim 1 does not require the cage
to expose any particular percentage of the underlying resilient portion of the
cup, or limit the interstices to any particular size, or recite any particular
configuration for the hard portion of the cup. Claim 1 therefore does not
contain any limitation distinguishing the claimed cup’s outer portion from
the outer portion of Lukens’ cup.
Moreover, 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 pointed out by the Examiner, one dictionary definition
for the term “cage” is “a box or enclosure having some openwork for
confining or carrying” (Answer 6).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013