Appeal No. 2000-0234 Page 5
Application No. 08/730,236
1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “Claims are not interpreted in a
vacuum, but are part of and are read in light of the
specification.” Slimfold Mfg. 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)).
Here, independent claim 1 specifies in pertinent part the
following limitations: "apparatus for activating the strobe
light. . . ." Similarly, independent claim 20 specifies in
pertinent part the following limitations: "means for strobing
the headlight. . . .” The specification describes the
strobing as “caus[ing] the [sic] either the high or low
headlight beam or strobe to flash at microsecond intervals to
create a strobe effect.” (Spec. at 9.) Reading the
independent claims in light of the specification, the
limitations require flashing a light at microsecond intervals
to create a strobe effect.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007