Appeal 2007-2463
Application 10/403,555
contended by Appellant, for example, in Figure 1a of Appellant’s disclosure,
such disclosed characteristics of this particular type of flush mounting are
simply not recited in claim 1. To confine the term “substantially flush” to
this disclosed structure would, in effect, import limitations from the
disclosure into the claims -- a practice that has been repeatedly denounced.
See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1334
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)
(“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of
the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to
those embodiments...[C]laims may embrace different subject matter than is
illustrated in the specific embodiments in the specification.”).
For at least the foregoing reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1. Moreover, since Appellant has not
separately argued the patentability of dependent claims 7 and 9, they fall
with claim 1. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525,
1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claims 2, 3, and 6
We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 2.
While we agree with Appellant to the extent that claim 2 requires an end
plate that is considered separate from the securing ring, nothing in the claim
language precludes different components of a unitary structure to constitute
a “securing ring” and “end plate” respectively.
That is, we find the flattened component of the structure
corresponding to numeral 21 in Kojima reasonably constitutes an “end
plate” as claimed. Not only does Kojima actually refer to this structure as an
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013