Appeal No. 1998-2471 Page 18
Application No. 08/222,913
Regarding claim 19, the appellants argue, “there is no
suggestion of the particular convex area with the electrodes
located as claimed.” (Appeal Br. at 16.) The examiner
replies, “Since Appellants did not define in the claim (cl.
19) the space areas in the ink chamber, the Examiner defines a
small section above electrode 4 as an upper space area and a
larger section above electrode 3 as a lower space area to meet
the limitation as claimed.” (Examiner’s Answer at 17.) We
agree with the examiner.
The appellants err by attempting to read limitations from
the specification into the claims. “In the patentability
context, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretations. 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)
(internal citations omitted). Here, claim 19 specifies in
pertinent part a “first electrode [that] is disposed at an
upper space area in said ink chamber and [a] said second
electrode [that] is disposed at a lower space area which is
larger than said upper space area.” Giving claim 19 its
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007