Interference No. 103,303
copolymers. These are the only arguments by the party
Galimberti et al. to predicate the separate patentability of
its claims. These arguments are addressed seriatim below.
I
With respect to the homogeneous argument, we note that
homogeneous is not a limitation recited in the party
Galimberti et al.'s claim 1. It is settled that a claim is to
be given its broadest reasonable interpretation and that a
limitation from specification is not to be read into the
claim. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057,
1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Intervet America, Inc. v. Kee-Vet Lab.
Inc., 887 F.2d 1050, 1053, 12 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (Fed. Cir.
1989). The reason for the rule is simply that during patent
prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be
recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and
clarification imposed. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The foregoing rule of
claim construction applies to patent claims which correspond
to the count. Lamont v. Berguer, 7 USPQ2d 1580, 1582 (Bd.
Pat. App. & Int. 1988). Since Galimberti et al.'s claim 1
does not recite that the copolymer is homogeneous, we will not
read the limitation into the claim.
-16-
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007