Appeal No. 98-1316
Application No. 08/420,896
patient's fill volume, we are of the opinion that the
examiner, by contending that "the entire fluid circuit"
(including a second pump 16, bubble trap 20, dialyzer 24,
restriction 36 and three-liter bag 48) collectively comprise
the reservoir container, is attempting to expand the meaning
of "reservoir container" beyond all reason. While it is true
that the claims in a patent application are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
specification (In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)) and limitations
from a pending application's specification will not be read
into the claims (Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581-82, 6
USPQ2d 2020, 2027 (Fed. Cir. 1988)), it is also well settled
that terms in a claim should be construed in a manner
consistent with the specification and construed as those
skilled in the art would construe them (see In re Bond, 910
F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990),
Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 986, 6
USPQ2d 1601, 1604 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Sneed, 710 F.2d
1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007