Interference No. 103,197
During patent examination the pending claims must be
interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.
When the applicant states the meaning that the claim
terms are intended to have, the claims are examined with
that meaning, in order to achieve a complete exploration
of the applicant's invention and its relation to the
prior art. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162
USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969) (before the application is
granted, there is no reason to read into the claim the
limitations of the specification). The reason is simply
that during patent prosecution when claims can be
amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and
breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Quigg, 822 F.2d 1581,
1583, 3 USPQ2d 1436, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re
Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). The issued claims are the measure of the
protected right. United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith
Co., 317 U.S. 228, 232, 55 USPQ 381, 383-84 (1942)
(citing General Electric Corp. v. Wabash Appliance Corp.,
304 U.S. 364, 369, 37 USPQ 466, 468-69 (1938)).
We note at the outset that Mannheimer does not take issue with
the APJ’s decision that the term "tissue" as used in
Buschmann’s claims excludes blood located in a cardiac chamber
or in a blood conduit, such as an artery or vein. 28
Buschmann's principal argument for patentability is that claim
28 is implicitly limited to pulse oximetry, because the
function of "detecting the changes in the intensity of the
light . . . in order to determine the blood oxygenation within
the tissue" (our emphasis) refers to detecting the amplitude
Dec. on Motions at 4.28
- 11 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007