Appeal No. 96-3037
Application No. 08/252,474
appellant’s specification has not limited the interpretation to
be given thereto. The examiner points out by reference to the
dictionary that “lateral” means located at or on the side, which
is the case with the Thio railgun. The only argument advanced by
the appellant regarding this rejection is to this issue, and is
that the Thio insulators are not “laterally positioned” within
the meaning that should be given to this terminology. The
appellant points to the representation of the invention provided
in the specification and a definition of “lateral” which, it is
asserted, commonly is used by engineers, as well as the concept
that an appellant is entitled to be his own lexicographer, in
urging that the phrase must be interpreted in such a manner as to
include the orientation of the layers of the insulators shown in
the drawings (Supplemental Brief, pages 12 through 16).
We are not persuaded by the appellant’s arguments. We begin
by pointing out that during examination, the pending claims in an
application must be interpreted as broadly as their terms
reasonably allow, without reading any limitations from the
specification into the claims. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). If the limitations
in the specification were required to be read into the claims
there would be no need for claims and no basis for the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007