Appeal No. 2002-0558 Page 4
Application No. 09/289,076
"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). In answering the question, "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)).
Here, claim 1 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "[a]pparatus for
monitoring leakage currents from an insulator for a high voltage conductor to ground
comprising . . . primary wire constructed and arranged to carry a leakage current from
the insulator to the ground; and an amplifier having an input connected to the
secondary winding, constructed and arranged to produce an output signal proportional
to the leakage current." Giving the claim its broadest, reasonable construction, the
limitations require an apparatus for monitoring leakage currents between an insulator
and ground comprising a wire for carrying a leakage current from the insulator to the
ground and an amplifier for generating a signal proportional to the leakage current.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007