Appeal No. 1998-1097
Application No. 08/557,484
intrinsic capacitance present in the device and are not
separate, distinct capacitor elements as claimed.”
After careful review of Appellant’s arguments, it is our
opinion that such arguments are not commensurate with the
scope of claim 1. It is axiomatic that, in proceedings before
the PTO, claims in an application are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and that claim language should be read in light
of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. 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 our view, even assuming,
arguendo, that “separate and distinct” language would
distinguish over the parasitic junction capacitances C and Cj1 j2
in Senuma, no such language exists in the claims. We further
note that the capacitances 2 and 3 illustrated in Appellant’s
Figure 1, which correspond to the claimed first and second
capacitors in appealed claim 1, are described at page 13,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007