Appeal No. 1997-2036
Application No. 08/335,991
15-16), that the court has held in E.I. Du Pont de Nemours &
Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 7 USPQ2d 1129 (Fed. Cir. 1988),
that
[i]t is entirely proper to use the specification to
interpret what the Patentee meant by a word or
phrase in the claim. [citation omitted]. But this
is not to be confused with adding an extraneous
limitation appearing in the specification, which is
improper. By "extraneous," we mean a limitation
read into a claim from the specification wholly
apart from any need to interpret what the patentee
meant by particular words or phrases in the claim.
(brief, page 16, emphasis in original).
Appellant shows in the drawings chambers with a low aspect
ratio and channels which are long and narrow. In the
specification (page 14) appellant discloses preferred
dimensions of the channels and chambers. Although appellant
states that the specific size may vary, the preferred
dimensions indicate the relative aspect ratios, which are on
the order of 100:1 for channels and 1:1 for chambers.
Accordingly, appellant has clearly distinguished between the
two terms, and the examiner cannot arbitrarily treat them as
being interchangeable.
Returning to Brown's element 81, Brown specifically
refers to it as a channel. Brown shows channel 81 in the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007