Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
Ultraseal Ltd., 781 F.2d 861, 867, 228 USPQ 90, 93
(Fed. Cir. 1985). But this is not to be confused
with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in
the specification, which is improper. By
“extraneous,” we mean a limitation read into a claim
from the specification wholly apart from any need to
interpret what the patentee meant by particular
words or phrases in the claim.
In interpreting its own claims, Cragg in its brief at
final hearing begins with a section discussing its disclosure,
entitled “Cragg Discloses A Unitary Bifurcated Long Leg/Short
Leg Prosthesis” (Emphasis in original). That section ends
with this one sentence paragraph:
The specification supports that Cragg’s claims
require a unitary bifurcated long leg/short leg
structure, where “unitary” requires a securing means
connecting the portions of the structure.
By the time Cragg made the above-quoted conclusion, it has not
yet recited, reproduced, or even referred to any actual
language in its claims. That Cragg’s specification has a
description for a certain embodiment does not necessarily mean
that all of Cragg’s claims must include the elements of that
embodiment. If the claims do not require a unitary structure
in the sense that there is a securing means which connects all
the parts together, these are extraneous limitations which
should not be read into the claims from the specification.
- 83 -
Page: Previous 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007