Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
Fogarty is correct that Cragg continues to attempt an
inappropriate reading of extraneous limitations from the
specification into the claims. Although the specification is
useful in interpreting claim language, as the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit has nonetheless stated, “the name of
the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362,
1369,
47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). See also Giles
Sutherland Rich, Extent of Protection and Interpretation of
Claims--American Perspectives, 21 Int' Rev. Indus. Prop. &
Copyright L, 497, 499 (1990)("The U.S. is strictly an
examination country and the main purpose of the examination,
to which every application is subjected, is to try to make
sure that what each claim defines is patentable. To coin a
phrase, the name of the game is the claims."). Reading into
the claims an extraneous limitation from the specification is
simply improper. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips
Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433, 7 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed.
Cir. 1988). In E.I. de Pont, 849 F.2d at 1433, 7 USPQ2d at
1131, the Federal Circuit stated:
It is entirely proper to use the specification
to interpret what the Patentee meant by a word or
phrase in the claim. See, e.g., Loctite Corp. v.
- 82 -
Page: Previous 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007