Appeal 2007-2318
Application 10/947,324
the hook, body, or eyelet. The Specification makes clear that the motion of
the blade is “limited by contact between the blade edge and either the jig
body or the eyelet” (Specification 5).
The Examiner interprets the “adapted to strike” claim language to
require only that the blade be “capable of performing the function of the first
edge striking the jig during retrieval” (Answer 14). We agree with this
interpretation. During patent examination, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Here, the Specification does not expressly define the phrase “adapted
to strike.” The Specification does state that the blade “is free to swing from
side to side, but is limited in the range of side-to-side movement” by the
eyelet or jig body (Specification 13). Those limitations, however, are not
part of claim 18 and we may not read limitations into the claims based on the
Specification’s disclosure. Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1582, 6
USPQ2d 2020, 2027 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“[T]he claims define the invention.
. . . [L]imitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims.”).
We agree with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of claim 18’s “adapted to strike” language is that it only
requires the blade to be capable of striking the jig (hook, body, or eyelet)
during retrieval. Cf. In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 959, 189 USPQ 149,
151-52 (CCPA 1976) (“claim 31 calls for ‘a pair of sleeves . . . adapted to be
fitted over the insulating jacket of one of said cables.’ . . . [T]his language
imparts a structural limitation to the sleeve. Each sleeve is so structured or
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013