Ex parte CARLETON et al. - Page 5




             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