Appeal No. 96-2276
Application 08/128,622
Prior to identifying structures, materials, and acts
described in the specification, which correspond to a
particular means, however, the examiner should first determine
if the recited function is even performed in the prior art
reference. Here, the issue is whether the prior art discloses
“preventing deformations of said shadow mask” as is recited in
claim 13.
Although extraneous limitations should not be read into
the claims from the specification, E.I. du Pont de Nemours &
Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433, 7 USPQ2d
1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1988), claim limitations are always
properly interpreted in light of the specification and
prosecution history. See, e.g., Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal
Ltd., 781 F.2d 861, 868, 228 USPQ 90, 94 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Here, we look to the specification to interpret the functional
recitation of “preventing deformations of said shadow mask
during operation of the display tube.” The specification
describes preventing deformations of the shadow mask with
respect to two separate embodiments.
The first embodiment in the specification that describes
preventing deformations of the shadow mask is found on pages 6
and 7, with reference to Fig. 5a. Here, the frame 20 is shown
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007