Ex Parte BATES et al - Page 7




          Appeal No. 2002-2053                                                        
          Application No. 09/329,135                                 Page 7           


          specification 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).                                                       
               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).                   







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007