Ex parte GARCIA-MALLOL - Page 7




          Appeal No. 1997-4385                                                        
          Application No. 08/288,864                                                  


          letters patent must be limited to the invention covered by the              
          claim, and while the claim may be illustrated it cannot be                  
          enlarged by language used in other parts of the                             
          specification."); Autogiro Co. of Am. v. United States, 384                 
          F.2d 391, 396, 155 USPQ 697, 701 (Ct. Cl. 1967) ("Courts can                
          neither broaden nor narrow the claims to give the patentee                  
          something different than what he has set forth [in the                      
          claim].").  See also Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern                   
          Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405, 419 (1908); Cimiotti Unhairing                 
          Co. v. American Fur Ref. Co., 198 U.S. 399, 410 (1905).                     
          Accordingly, "resort must be had in the first instance to the               
          words of the claim" and words "will be given their ordinary                 
          and accustomed meaning, unless it appears that the inventor                 
          used them                                                                   





          differently."  Envirotech Corp. v. Al George, Inc., 730 F.2d                
          753, 759, 221 USPQ 473, 477 (Fed. Cir. 1984).  Second, it is                
          equally "fundamental that claims are to be construed in the                 
          light of the specification and both are to be read with a view              
                                          7                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007