Appeal No. 96-4003
Application 08/288,131
commensurate with the scope of independent claims 1 and 11. It is axiomatic that, in proceedings
before the PTO, claims in an application are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, and that claim language should be read in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218
USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The present
independent claims 1 and 11 do not require that each bias circuit generate the same bias. Appellants'
attempt to attach special significance to the phrases “a bias” and “the bias” as somehow supporting an
interpretation of the recited claim language as requiring identical generated bias voltages is not
persuasive. As to Appellants’ reference to page 3, lines 7-10 of the their specification as support for
their position, we are equally not persuaded that the stated desire for closely regulating the substrate
bias voltage would translate into a requirement for the generation of identical output bias voltages from
each bias circuit. We agree with the Examiner’s analysis that each of the elements and method steps
are shown to exist in the Tobita reference.
Appellants further assert that the circuit of Tobita is directed to a different purpose and for
solving a different problem than the instant claimed invention. We note, however, that, to the extent that
any statement of intended purpose for Appellants’ circuit appears in the claims, such would not be
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007