Appeal No. 2000-2148 Page 8
Application No. 08/935,704
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)). Also,
“the 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)).1
Here, the appellants stipulate, “[c]laims 1, 2, 4-15, 17, 18
and 20-37 stand or fall together.” (Appeal Br. at 2.)
Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4-15, 17, 18, 20-28, and 30-37 stand or
fall with representative claim 29. For its part, claim 29
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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007