Appeal No. 1996-2284
Application No. 08/228,889
during examination proceedings, claims are given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the specification. See In re Graves, 69 F.3d
1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995);
In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed.
Cir. 1985) (en banc). That last proposition "serves
the public interest by reducing the possibility that
claims, finally allowed, will be given broader scope
than is justified," In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569,
1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984), and it is
not unfair to applicants, because "before a patent
is granted the claims are readily amended as part of
the examination process," Burlington Indus., Inc. v.
Quigg, 822 F.2d 1581, 1583, 3 USPQ2d 1436, 1438
(Fed. Cir. 1987).
See also In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023,
1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997):
the PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims
the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their
ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may
be afforded by the written description contained in the
applicant's specification.
Appellants' specification does not define the phrase "secured
to" to mean "mounted on," "carried by," or "movable with."
Nor have appellants cited any authority, such as a dictionary
definition, for giving "secured to" such a narrow
construction. It would have been obvious to support Mitome's
lens system 9, lenses 7 and 7', and folding mirrors with
interconnected support elements, such as elements mounted on a
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007