Appeal No. 2003-0583
Application No. 09/270,688
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. 1958).
Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the
invention claimed? . . . . Claim interpretation . . . will
normally control the remainder of the decisional process.
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Manufacturing Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567-
68, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir.) cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1052
(1987).
We note that Appellants' claim 1 recites "randomly
positioning a foot." We fail to find that the claim limits to a
foot in a non-weight bearing, non-compressed natural state. We
note that for instance, the claim does not require that it is a
bare foot. Furthermore, we note that the claim recites
"comprising" which does not limit other steps such as providing a
compression sock on the foot in the method steps. Therefore, we
fail to find the claim precludes a human foot wearing a
compression sock as argued by Appellants.
1010
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007