Appeal No. 1998-2983
Application No. 08/481,230
v. United States, 384 F.2d 391, 396, 155 USPQ 697, 701 (Ct. Cl. 1967) ("Courts can
neither broaden nor narrow the claims to give the patentee something different than what
he has set forth [in the claim]."). See also Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper
Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405, 419 (1908); Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Fur Ref. Co.,
198 U.S. 399, 410 (1905). Accordingly, "resort must be had in the first instance to the
words of the claim" and words "will be given their ordinary and accustomed meaning,
unless it appears that the inventor used them differently." Envirotech Corp. v. Al
George, Inc., 730 F.2d 753, 759, 221 USPQ 473, 477 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Second, it is
equally "fundamental that claims are to be construed in the light of the specification and
both are to be read with a view to ascertaining the invention." United States v. Adams,
383 U.S. 39, 49, 148 USPQ 479, 482 (1966).
Furthermore, the general claim construction principle that limitations found only in
the specification of a patent or patent application should not be imported or read into a
claim must be followed. See In re Priest, 582 F.2d 33, 37, 199 USPQ 11, 15 (CCPA
1978). One must be careful not to confuse impermissible imputing of limitations from
the specification into a claim with the proper reference to the specification to determine the
meaning of a particular word or phrase recited in a claim. See E.I. Du Pont de Nemours
& Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433, 7 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007