Appeal No. 2000-1515 Page 7
Application No. 08/687,195
“Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the
invention claimed?” Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d
1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Claims that
are not argued separately stand or fall together. In re Kaslow,
707 F.2d 1366, 1376, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing
In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979)). When the
patentability of a dependent claim is not argued separately, in
particular, the claim stands or falls with the claim from which
it depends. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137
(Fed. Cir. 1986)(citing In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217
USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1178-
79, 201 USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA 1979)).
“[T]he Board must give claims their broadest reasonable
construction. . . .” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d
1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Moreover, limitations are not to
be read into the claims from the specification.” 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)).2
2 “The PTO broadly interprets claims during examination of a
patent application since the applicant may ‘amend his claims to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007