Appeal No. 1996-1735
Application No. 08/184,526
is outside of the claimed ratio of “from about 1.05:1.00 to
about 1.95:1.00" (emphasis supplied). At issue is, therefore,
whether the phrase “about 1.95:1.00" recited in claim 1, by
virtue of the imprecise term “about”, is interpreted as
encompassing the ratio of 2.00:1.00 exemplified in the Weiss
reference.
During prosecution of a patent application, the broadest
reasonable interpretation is given to words in the claims in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in this art. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Prater,
415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969). This
approach does not impair appellants' interest since they have
ample opportunities to amend their claims to obtain
appropriate coverage for their invention with express claim
language during prosecution of their application. In re
Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir.
1984). In fact, it “serves the public interest by reducing
the possibility that claims, finally allowed, will be given
broader scope than is justified.” Id.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007