Appeal No. 96-1515
Application 08/161/859
film” as recited in claim 5.
The specification provides no unusual definition for
the phrase “protective film.” The specification merely
identifies diamond-like carbon (DLC), silicon nitride or the
like as examples of protective films [page 4]. Although
appellants desire certain properties for their protective
film, a specific definition including these properties does
not exist in the specification. Claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution. In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989); In re Prater,
415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969). It is
improper to narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly
reading in disclosed limitations from the specification which
have no express basis in the claims. See id. Where an
inventor chooses to be his own lexicographer and to give terms
uncommon meanings, he must set out his uncommon definition in
some manner within the patent disclosure so as to give one of
ordinary skill in the art notice of the change. Intellicall,
Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1388, 21 USPQ2d
15
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007