Appeal No. 2004-0096 Page 3
Application No. 09/785,273
Before addressing the patentability of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, it is
essential that we understand the scope and content thereof. A basic and important rule
of claim construction is that 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 specifications 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).
With these principles in mind, we turn to the language of claims 2 and 3 on
appeal. Claim 2 requires, inter alia, “a detachable air passageway member which
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007