Appeal No. 2003-1200
Application No. 09/319,142
determination that patentee’s recesses 35 are encompassed by the
“pyramid-shaped depressions” of claim 16.
In this regard, we remind the appellants that in proceedings
before the Patent and Trademark Office, claims in an application
are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544,
1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). For this reason, it is
appropriate that we broadly interpret the claim phrase “pyramid-
shaped depressions” to include depressions which have a shape
like that shown in Figs. 10-12 of Gregory which is like the
pyramid shape displayed in the appellants’ drawing in all
respects but for the apex being flat rather than pointed.
Indeed, because claim 16 contains no express basis for a
pointed apex limitation, it would be improper to interpret the
phrase “pyramid-shaped depressions” as requiring a pointed apex.
That is, such an interpretation would require reading the pointed
apex limitation of the appellants’ specification/drawing into
claim 16 to thereby narrow the scope thereof by implicitly adding
a limitation which has no express basis in the claim. In re
Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007