Appeal No. 96-1225
Application 08/107,696
(CCPA 1976); In re Kroekel, 504 F.2d 1143, 1146, 183 USPQ 610,
612 (CCPA 1974); In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ
236, 238-39 (CCPA 1971). However, limitations are not to be
read from the specification into the claims. See In re
Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1405, 162 USPQ 541, 551 (CCPA 1969).
A patent specification "acts as a dictionary when it
expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it defines
terms by implication." Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
90 F.3d 1576, 1582, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Appellant’s specification not only does not expressly define
the term "mechanically circulated" recited in claim 1, but
does not mention this term or any similar term. The term 2
"mechanically circulated" was added to claim 1 by amendment
(filed September 23, 1994, paper no. 8). The specification
states (page 3, lines 10-13) that the liquefied or
supercritical gas "is circulated in the pressure tank, for
example, by the rotation of a vane-equipped impeller" and that
2The examiner should consider requiring that the
specification be amended so that it provides clear antecedent
basis for the term "mechanically circulated". See 37 CFR
§ 1.75(d)(1)(1996); Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
§ 608.01(o) (7th ed., July 1998).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007