Appeal No. 96-2160
Application 07/862,888
apparatus under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as argued by appellants. Appellants point to a
description of the flow chart of Figures 3a and 3b, but this flow chart corresponds to a
function or process being performed and not to a corresponding structure as required by
the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Thus, even if appellants’ claim 6 is properly
construed in means plus function form, there is no corresponding structure disclosed which
would patentably distinguish over the structure of Deitel’s OS/2 computer system.
Since the facts of this case do not allow for any special claim construction under 35
U.S.C. § 112, we apply the general rule of claim construction. 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. Using this general rule of claim construction, we agree with the examiner that the
two paths of the claims are broad enough to be met by the regular path and the preemptive
path of Deitel. Even though this may not be what appellants intended for their claims to
cover, it is appellants’ responsibility to limit the claim language to cover only that which they
invented and not to cover prior art disclosures.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner’s rejection of the claims under
35 U.S.C. § 102. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-8 is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007