Appeal No. 2003-1176
Application No. 09/074,288
application are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation, taking into account the written description
found in the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054,
44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)(“During
patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as
broadly as their terms reasonably allow.”); In re Yamamoto, 740
F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984)(“The PTO
broadly interprets claims during examination of a patent
application since the applicant may ‘amend his claim to obtain
protection commensurate with his actual contribution to the
art.’”)(quoting In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ
541, 550 (CCPA 1969)).
Here, appealed claim 1 recites the term “upholstery skin
material.” While the specification lists several examples of
this material, it does not place any limitations on the specific
identity or on the thickness of the material. (Page 4, lines
12-13.) Under these circumstances, we construe the term
“upholstery skin material” as encompassing any skin material,
including laminated structures of any thickness.
group II and confine our discussion to these representative
claims. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1995).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007