Appeal No. 1999-1747 Page 7
Application No. 08/715,422
the language of the claim defines the scope of the protected
invention. Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Greenleaf, 117 U.S. 554, 559
(1886) ("The scope of letters patent must be limited to the
invention covered by the claim, and while the claim may be
illustrated it cannot be enlarged by language used in other
parts of the specification."); Autogiro Co. of Am. v. United
States, 384 F.2d 391, 396, 155 USPQ 697, 701 (Ct. Cl. 1967)
("Courts can neither broaden nor narrow the claims to give the
patentee something different than what he has set forth [in
the claim]."). See also Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern
Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405, 419 (1908); Cimiotti Unhairing
Co. v. American Fur Ref. Co., 198 U.S. 399, 410 (1905).
Accordingly, "resort must be had in the first instance to the
words of the claim" and words "will be given their ordinary
and accustomed meaning, unless it appears that the inventor
used them differently." Envirotech Corp. v. Al George, Inc.,
730 F.2d 753, 759, 221 USPQ 473, 477 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Second, it is equally "fundamental that claims are to be
construed in the light of the specification and both are to be
read with a view to ascertaining the invention." United
States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 49, 148 USPQ 479, 482 (1966).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007