Appeal No. 2001-1866 Page 4
Application No. 08/478,606
Here, claim 3 specifies in pertinent part "various power measurements. . . ."
Despite the appellants' argument, the various power measurements of the claim are not
limited to real power, reactive power, and apparent power. Had the appellants intended
to limit the scope of claim 3 so, they could have recited expressly the various power
measurements of real power, reactive power, and apparent power as they did in
claim 16 ("generate various power measurements including real power, reactive power,
and apparent power. . . ."). The appellants chose not to do so, seeking a broader
claim. We will not read the omitted limitations into claim 3 thereby narrowing it. If the
appellants choose to have these limitations included, they can amend the claim "during
the examination of [their] patent application. . . ." In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05,
162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969).
In addition, the doctrine of claim differentiation supports an interpretation of
"various power measurements" that is not limited to the specification's real power,
reactive power, and apparent power. "This doctrine, which is ultimately based on the
common sense notion that different words or phrases used in separate claims are
presumed to indicate that the claims have different meanings and scope," Karlin Tech.,
Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 177 F.3d 968, 971, 50 USPQ2d 1465, 1468 (Fed. Cir.
1999) (citing Comark Comms. Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187, 48 USPQ2d
1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1998)), "normally means that limitations stated in dependent
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007