Appeal 2007-2558
Application 10/205,948
Knoepfler,4 we are in complete agreement with the Examiner that limitations
from the Specification are not read into the claims (Answer 6-7). (See
Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581, 6 USPQ2d 2020, 2027 (Fed. Cir.
1988) (“[W]hile it is true that claims are to be interpreted in light of the
specification and with a view to ascertaining the invention, it does not follow
that limitations from the specification may be read into the claims.”); see
also In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (“[L]imitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification.”).) Appellants have not identified any disclosure in the
Specification inconsistent with our interpretation of the claim.
Appellants also contend that the “teeth of the clamping edges of
Knoepfler extend orthogonally from the edge, rather than radially from the
base” as recited in claims 1 and 8. We have interpreted the phrase “radially
outward from the base” to mean that the teeth are arranged around the base
4 Although Appellants argue that Figs. 2 and 3 show a peripheral edge that is
“clear and distinct” over Knoepfler (Br. 5), they do not explain or describe
how the peripheral edges illustrated in Figs. 2 and 3 of the Specification
differ from the teeth described by Knoepfler. In fact, they look the same
because in profile, as depicted in Figs. 2 of the Specification and Knoepfler
reproduced below, each is L-shaped.
Fig. 2 of Specification: Fig. 2 of Knoepfler:
Fig. 2 of the Specification shows the edge pointed upward; Fig. 2 of
Knoepfler shows the edge (“tooth”) pointed upward.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013