Appeal No. 2000-1508 Page 14
Application No. 08/810,442
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: "means for receiving all externally
supplied input, including all program content and all keys, on a
single input port, and delivering said input to the first and
second computation means." Giving the claim its broadest
reasonable construction, the limitations merely require inter
alia means for receiving all externally supplied input via a
single port.
1 “The PTO broadly interprets claims during examination of a
patent application since the applicant may ‘amend his claims to
obtain protection commensurate with his actual contribution to
the art.’” In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934,
936 (Fed. Cir. 1984)(quoting In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393,
1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969)). “This approach serves
the public interest by reducing the possibility that claims,
finally allowed, will be given broader scope than is justified.
Applicants' interests are not impaired since they are not
foreclosed from obtaining appropriate coverage for their
invention with express claim language.” Id. at 1571-72, 222 USPQ
at 936 (citing Prater, 415 F.2d at 1405 n.31, 162 USPQ at 550
n.31).
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007