Appeal No. 95-0972 Page 7
Application No. 07/650,453
read with a view to ascertaining the invention." United
States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 49, 148 USPQ 479, 482 (1966).
Furthermore, the general claim construction principle
that limitations found only in the specification of a patent
or patent application should not be imported or read into a
claim must be followed. See In re Priest, 582 F.2d 33, 37,
199 USPQ 11, 15 (CCPA 1978). One must be careful not to
confuse impermissible imputing of limitations from the
specification into a claim with the proper reference to the
specification to determine the meaning of a particular word or
phrase recited in a claim. See E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.
v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433, 7 USPQ2d 1129,
1131 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 986 (1988).
Claim 1 recites:
A method of removing pollutants from near-surface
ground water comprising:
planting perennial tree stems having an upper and
lower end, and having preformed root initials, at a depth
so that at least two buds at the upper end of the stem
are above the ground and the lower end of the stem is
located to provide nutrient, pollutant and water uptake
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007