Appeal No. 1997-3254
Application No. 08/495,330
Claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution, and the
scope of a claim cannot be narrowed by reading disclosed limitations into the claim. See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ 541, 550
(CCPA 1969). A simple and complete definition of coaxial cable is “[a] cable containing one or more
coaxial lines.” IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms, 1972. While appellants
disclose particular embodiments of coaxial cable, the specification does not redefine the term as
anything narrower than the dictionary meaning. Appellants’ description of the background and field of
the invention is consistent with the dictionary definition. (See specification, pages 1 and 2.)
Thus, even if the Claim 1 preamble recitation of a “coaxial cable” is to be considered as
representing more than an environment of intended use, the high voltage cable disclosed by Berends is
also a “coaxial cable,” in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term in light of
appellants’ specification. The cable has a least a line 5 and a line 3, which are coaxially arranged within
the cable. Note also the use of the term "coaxial" in the abstract of Berends.
Careful review of the expert’s declaration, filed pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.132 and
accompanying the Reply Brief, does not convince us that our interpretation is in error. The facts alleged
in the declaration concern, for the most part, intended use -- that is, function -- of the cable. Claim 1,
however, is an apparatus claim. It does not contain even a statement of intended use commensurate
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007