Appeal No. 2002-1474 Page 10
Application No. 09/002,927
Furthermore, the general claim construction principle that
limitations found only in the specification of a patent or patent
application should not be imported or read into a claim must be
followed. See In re Priest, 582 F.2d 33, 37, 199 USPQ 11, 15
(CCPA 1978). One must be careful not to confuse impermissible
imputing of limitations from the specification into a claim with
the proper reference to the specification to determine the
meaning of a particular word or phrase recited in a claim. See
E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d
1430, 1433, 7 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488
U.S. 986 (1988).
What we are dealing with in this case is the construction of
the limitations recited in the appealed claims. As stated by the
court in In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523,
1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) "[t]he name of the game is the claim."
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).
We find that the claim 1 language "when the vehicle
information receiving means receives a vehicle information based
on image data, the vehicle information based on image data is
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007