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 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007