Appeal No. 2000-0142 Page 13
Application No. 08/705,569
would help to solve the high-frequency interference problem in
the admitted prior art.” (Appeal Br. at 16.)
In deciding anticipation, “the first inquiry must be into
exactly what the claims define.” In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447,
450, 166 USPQ 545, 548 (CCPA 1970). “In the patentability
context, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretations. 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)). 5
Here, claim 18 specifies in pertinent part the following
limitations: “the reference resistor is independent of and is
not a part of the current amplifier.” Giving the claim its
broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations require a
5Claims are given such interpretation because during
examination an “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.” In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393,
1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969).
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007