Appeal No. 1997-3690
Application 08/427,163
element of a claimed invention." RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir.), cert dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984), citing Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983).
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. "[T]he name of the game is
the claim. In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d
1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir 1998). Claims will be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and limitations appearing in the specification
are not to be read into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d
852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In addition, our
reviewing court states in In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) that "claims be interpreted
as broadly as their terms reasonably allow" generally given
their ordinary and accustomed meaning, unless it appears from
the specification or the file histroy that they were used
differently by the inventor. Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro
Mechanical Sys., Inc. 15 F.3d 1573, 1577, 27 USPQ 1836, 1840
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007