Appeal No. 2000-0023
Application 08/967,856
551 (CCPA 1969) ("claims yet unpatented are to be given the
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification during examination of a patent application since
the applicant may then amend his claims, the thought being to
reduce the possibility that, after the patent is granted, the
claims may be interpreted as giving broader coverage than is
justified" [footnote omitted]). However, the scope of a claim
may not be narrowed by importing into the claim limitations
from the specification which have no express basis in the
claim. Prater 415 F.2d at 1404, 162 USPQ at 550.
We do not find any of appellants' arguments to be
persuasive because they are founded on an unduly restrictive
interpretation of the claim language. Appellants arguments
are founded on their interpretation of the term "wood" in the
claims as not encompassing living trees, to which the
disclosure of Hagar is clearly limited. Rather, appellants
argue that "Wood and composite wood materials are dead
material - not live plants." See page 6 of the brief.
Nevertheless, appellants have failed to direct our attention
to that portion of their specification wherein the argued
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007