Appeal No. 96-4164
Application 08/467,295
Moreover, we note that it has been a long-standing
maxim of patent law that, during examination, “claims 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 interpre-
tation of claim limitations, in that the “drawings alone may be
sufficient to provide the 'written description of the invention'
required by § 112, first paragraph. 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 rele-
vant to claim interpretation and used to interpret what the in-
ventor intended by the claim terms. Applying these precepts to
the present application, we find that, when the claim language
under consideration is read in light of the present application
disclosure as such would be interpreted by the hypothetical per-
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007