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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007