Appeal No. 95-0972 Page 6
Application No. 07/650,453
construction. First, and most important, the language of the
claim defines the scope of the protected invention. Yale Lock
Mfg. Co. v. Greenleaf, 117 U.S. 554, 559 (1886) ("The scope of
letters patent must be limited to the invention covered by the
claim, and while the claim may be illustrated it cannot be
enlarged by language used in other parts of the
specification."); Autogiro Co. of Am. v. United States, 384
F.2d 391, 396, 155 USPQ 697, 701 (Ct. Cl. 1967) ("Courts can
neither broaden nor narrow the claims to give the patentee
something different than what he has set forth [in the
claim]."). See also Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern
Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405, 419 (1908); Cimiotti Unhairing
Co. v. American Fur Ref. Co., 198 U.S. 399, 410 (1905).
Accordingly, "resort must be had in the first instance to the
words of the claim" and words "will be given their ordinary
and accustomed meaning, unless it appears that the inventor
used them differently." Envirotech Corp. v. Al George, Inc.,
730 F.2d 753, 759, 221 USPQ 473, 477 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Second, it is equally "fundamental that claims are to be
construed in the light of the specification and both are to be
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007