Appeal No. 1999-1889 Page 8
Application No. 08/366,988
Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc., 810 F.2d 1113, 1116, 1 USPQ2d
1563, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1987)(citing Hybritech Inc. v.
Monoclonal Anti-bodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1385, 231 USPQ
81, 94-95 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Mattison, 509 F.2d 563, 565,
184 USPQ 484, 486 (CCPA 1975)). “In the patentability
context, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretations.” 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)). 1
Here, representative claim 1 specifies in pertinent part
the following limitations: “first and second vacuum producing
materials respectively having first and second vacuum
producing capacities respectively for dispensing and storing
ink, the first and second materials being in surface-to-
1Claims 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007