Appeal No. 1997-4111 Page 14
Application No. 08/540,947
In proceedings before it, the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO) applies to the verbiage of the claims
before it 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
appellants' specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054,
44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also In re Sneed,
710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from
the specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26
USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993) citing In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). In this
case, the appellants' specification does not provide any
specific definition for the term "complementary" as used in
claim 7. The dictionary definition of "complementary" is set
forth on page 17 of the brief. In view of that definition, it
is our determination that the broadest reasonable meaning of
"complementary" which is consistent with the appellants'
specification without reading limitations into the claim is
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007