Appeal No. 2002-2053
Application No. 09/329,135 Page 6
Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Laboratories Corp., 859 F.2d 878,
882, 8 USPQ2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Before turning to the proper construction of the claim, it
is important to review some basic principles of claim
construction. First, and most important, 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007