Appeal No. 2001-1666
Application 08/818,333
During patent prosecution, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, as the claim language would have been read by one
of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification and
prior art. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320,
1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551, 190
USPQ 461, 463 (CCPA 1976); In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548, 190
USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976). Limitations, however, are not to be
read from the specification into the claims. See In re Prater,
415 F.2d 1393, 1405, 162 USPQ 541, 551 (CCPA 1969).
The preamble of claim 3 recites that the claimed process is
for on site installation of tiles. The appellant’s specification
indicates that “on site installation” includes not only applying,
to the surface to be decorated, tiles attached to perforated
paper but, rather, requires that all of the steps recited in
claim 3 be carried out onsite (page 1, lines 3-19).
Consequently, this is the interpretation we give to the claim.4
4 This is how the claim is interpreted by the appellant
(brief, page 6) and the examiner (answer, page 14).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007