Appeal No. 96-1931
Application 07/995,635
prior art. Thus, appellants= argument that Sulcs teaches away
from using the oxide coating is not relevant because Sulcs still
suggests that such an article was known in the prior art.
Appellants= argument that the coating in Sulcs is not
continuous as claimed is also not persuasive. Claims are to be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecu-
tion. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed.
Cir. 1989); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ 541, 550
(CCPA 1969). It is improper to narrow the scope of the claim by
implicitly reading in disclosed limitations from the specifica-
tion which have no express basis in the claims. See Id. Thus,
appellants= attempt to interpret the claims as requiring a
continuous coating over an entire surface of the tube is based
upon the disclosed invention rather than the clear language of
the claims. We note that it would be a simple matter for appel-
lants to amend the claims to require this specific narrower
reading of the claims.
In our view, each of the coatings in Sulcs over the
respective end caps of the arc tube is a continuous coating over
the portion of the arc tube which it covers. When claims 5, 8
and 14 are given their broadest reasonable interpretation, it is
seen that a surface of the tube in Sulcs is continuously coated
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007