Appeal No. 2002-0419
Application No. 08/457,732
United States, 384 F.2d 391, 396, 155 USPQ 697, 701 (Ct. Cl. 1967) ("Courts can
neither broaden nor narrow the claims to give the patentee something different than
what he has set forth [in the claim]."). See also Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern
Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405, 419 (1908); Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Fur
Ref. Co., 198 U.S. 399, 410 (1905). Accordingly, "resort must be had in the first
instance to the words of the claim" and words "will be given their ordinary and
accustomed meaning, unless it appears that the inventor used them differently."
Envirotech Corp. v. Al George, Inc., 730 F.2d 753, 759, 221 USPQ 473, 477 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). Second, it is equally "fundamental that claims are to be construed in the
light of the specification and both are to be read with a view to ascertaining the
invention." United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 49, 148 USPQ 479, 482 (1966).
Furthermore, the general claim construction principle that limitations found only in
the specification of a patent or patent application should not be imported or read into a
claim must be followed. See In re Priest, 582 F.2d 33, 37, 199 USPQ 11, 15 (CCPA
1978). One must be careful not to confuse impermissible imputing of limitations from
the specification into a claim with the proper reference to the specification to determine
the meaning of a particular word or phrase recited in a claim. See E.I. du Pont de
Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433, 7 USPQ2d 1129,
1131 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 986 (1988). What we are dealing with is
construction of the limitations recited in the appealed claims.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007