Appeal No. 1997-2340 Page 6
Application No. 08/329,687
“‘[T]he main purpose of the examination, to which every
application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what
each claim defines is patentable. [T]he name of the game is
the claim ....’” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369,
47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles S. Rich,
The Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of
Claims--American Perspectives, 21 Int'l Rev. Indus. Prop. &
Copyright L. 497, 499, 501 (1990)). Furthermore, “[c]laims
are not interpreted in a vacuum, but are part of and are read
in light of the specification.” Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead
Indus., Inc., 810 F.2d 1113, 1116,
1 USPQ2d 1563, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing Hybritech Inc. v.
Monoclonal Anti-bodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1385, 231 USPQ
81, 94-95 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Mattison, 509 F.2d 563, 565,
184 USPQ 484, 486 (CCPA 1975)). Here, claim 1-5 specify in
pertinent part the following limitations: "detect means for
detecting the self-firing of any of the switching elements in
the switching circuit due to the over-voltage ...."
Similarly, claim 6 specifies in pertinent part the following
limitations: "detecting the self-firing of at least one
switching element due to an over-voltage in a switching
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007