Appeal No. 95-1292
Application 07/911,471
B We must give claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d
1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Although means-plus-function
and step-plus-function claims are inherently narrow because
they are limited to structures and acts found in the
specification or their equivalents, 35 U.S.C. § 112, we
remain obliged to give them the broadest construction
possible within the law. In particular, we may not read
into a claim limitations that are expressly added in a
dependent claim. Transmatic Inc. v. Gulton Indus., 53 F.3d
1270, 1277, 35 USPQ2d 1035, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (applying
the doctrine of claim differentiation in the context of
dependent claims).
B. Claim grouping
C Although Applicants state that the claims on appeal do not
stand or fall together (Paper 14 at 7-8), we are guided by
what Applicants actually argue. In re Nielson, 816 F.2d
1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987). We note
that Applicants argue related apparatus and method claims
together, so we will treat them as standing or falling
together.
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007