Appeal No. 2002-0592
Application No. 09/107,090
Before turning to the proper construction of the claims, it is important to review
some basic principles of claim construction. First, and most important, the language of
the claim defines the scope of the protected invention. Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v.
Greenleaf, 117 U.S. 554, 559 (1886) ("The scope of letters patent must be limited to
the invention covered by the claim, and while the claim may be illustrated it cannot be
enlarged by language used in other parts of the specification."); Autogiro Co. of Am. v.
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
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007