Appeal No. 95-1747
Application 08/047,994
the metes and bounds of the claimed invention with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity. See In re Venezia, 530
F.2d 956, 958, 189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976); In re Hammack,
427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208 (CCPA 1970). However, it
is equally well settled that, during examination, "claims in an
application are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification" and, in
addition, that the "claim language should be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill
in the art." In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388
(Fed. Cir. 1983)(emphasis added). Our Court of review has also
informed us that the drawings included in the application may aid
in the interpretation of claim limitations, in that the "drawings
alone may be sufficient to provide the 'written description of
the invention’ required by § 112." Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
935 F.2d 1555, 1564, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Thus, in those instances where a visual representation can
flesh out words, as in the present application, drawings can and
should be used like the written specification to provide evidence
relevant to claim interpretation and used to interpret what the
inventor intended by the claim terms.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007