Appeal No. 2002-0875
Application 09/212,127
within, the plane or planes containing the permanent magnets as
recited in Appellants’ claims. See page 12 of Appellants’ Brief.
Appellants further argue that Goldman does not teach this
limitation as well. See pages 14 and 15 of Appellants’ Brief.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of claims 12 and 18. "[T]he name of the game
is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d
1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Claims will be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and
limitations appearing in the specification are not to be read
into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5
(Fed. Cir. 1985). Our reviewing court also states in In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989),
that "claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms
reasonably allow."
Appellants argue that claims 1, 11, 21, 31, 32 and 33
have been amended expressly to assert that the electromagnets are
in a plane that is substantially parallel to, but not within, the
plane or planes containing the magnets. Appellants argue that
the word “parallel” implicitly conveys the same understanding
that Figures 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 show.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007