Appeal No. 2000-0523
Application 08/583,307
In claims 9 and 10, it is unclear if the phrases
“an effective depth,” “an area edge [sic, edge
area],” and “a moment of inertia” are referencing
the effective depth, area edge, and moment of
inertia previously recited in claims 1 and 2. Also,
it is unclear as to the meaning of “first and second
set of characteristics” of claim 9 [answer, pages 3
and 4].
While admitting that the terms or phrases listed in the
first paragraph of this passage are defined in (or at least
understandable in light of) the underlying specification, the
examiner submits that the use of the specification to
interpret these terms or phrases amounts to an improper
reading of the specification into the claims (see pages 6 and
7 in the answer). It is well settled, however, that it is
entirely proper to use the specification to interpret what is
meant by a word or phrase in a claim, and that this is not to
be confused with the improper addition of an extraneous
limitation from the specification wholly apart from any need
to interpret the word or phrase.
In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674
(Fed. Cir. 1994). Here, the use of the appellants’ admittedly
enlightening specification to interpret the claim language in
question is entirely proper and does not amount to an improper
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007