Appeal No. 1997-1358
Application 07/874,651
portion thereof proximate to the free end thereof.” Although
the examiner has pointed to the ridges or notches 9 near the
free ends of fingers 3 and 4 of Binder as meeting the “notched
portion” of claim 20, appellants argue that the elements 9 of
Binder are not notched portions as that term was used in their
specification. Appellants argue that they are allowed to be
their own lexicographer, and the term “notched portion” should
be interpreted as intended in the disclosure [brief, pages 9-
10; reply brief, page 1].
In view of the positions of appellants and the
examiner, the only question presented to us with respect to
claim 20 is whether the ridges 9 of Binder can be considered
to be notched portions within the meaning of claim 20. We
follow the general rule that 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
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007