Appeal No. 95-3640
Application 08/147,742
interpreted to define the invention to be tested for utility.
See Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 956, 220 USPQ
592, 596 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert denied, 469 U.S. 835 (1984).
During patent prosecution, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and the claim language is to be read in view of
the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Sneed, 710
F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re
Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976).
However, limitations are not to be read from the specification
into the claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1405, 162
USPQ 541, 551 (CCPA 1969). "Claim interpretation is a
question of law, reviewed non-deferentially on appeal." See
Mantech Environmental Corp. v. Hudson Environmental Services,
152 F.3d 1368, 1371, 47 USPQ2d 1732, 1735 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
The preamble of appellants’ claim 1 reads as follows: “A
method for killing rhinoviruses and preventing the spread of
rhinovirus induced colds”. Appellants’ specification
-4-4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007