Appeal No. 1999-0865
Application No. 08/468,573
terminal and the “third” terminal is through the antenna itself,
such a connection is not precluded by the language of independent
claim 57.
As to Appellants’ further argument (Brief, page 5) that
Fessenden lacks any teaching of a grounded capacitor at the
signal source, we find that such argument is not commensurate
with the scope of the claim. It is axiomatic that, in
proceedings before the PTO, claims in an application are to be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specification, and that claim language should be read in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548,
218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). 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). Our review of the language of appealed claim
57 reveals no limitations directed to any signal source location
of a grounded capacitor.
In view of the above discussion, since all of the
claimed limitations are present in the disclosure of Fessenden,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007