Appeal No. 1997-0334
Application 08/211,698
551 (CCPA 1969) ("claims yet unpatented are to be given the
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification during examination of a patent application since
the applicant may then amend his claims, the thought being to
reduce the possibility that, after the patent is granted, the
claims may be interpreted as giving broader coverage than is
justified" [footnote omitted]). However, the scope of a claim
may not be narrowed by importing into the claim limitations
from the specification, which have no express basis in the
claim. Prater at 415 F.2d 1404, 162 USPQ 550.
In their main brief, appellants direct us to page 1,
lines 3 through 6 of their specification and their original
claims as support for their argument. Appellants'
specification at page 1, lines 3 through 6 merely recites that
the polyol may either be a high molecular weight
polycondensation resin or a mixture of a polycondensation
resin with a polymerization resin. Appellants' original
claims included the same language now before us in describing
components "a1)" and "a2)". Thus, neither the
specification nor the original claims shed any light on what
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007