Appeal No. 2002-2179
Application No. 08/839,861
activation of a DTX feature. Nor do appellants appear to offer any limiting definition in
the briefs, other than what one might infer from appellants’ position that Johnson fails to
meet the terms of the claim. Nor does the relevant instant specification section set forth
any particular definition for “continuous transmission.” In our view, the section conveys
that preventing activation of a DTX feature is but one example of a “continuous
transmission.” We further note that the literal language of the claim does not include
limitations referring to any DTX feature.
Claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation during
prosecution, and the scope of a claim cannot be narrowed by reading disclosed
limitations into the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023,
1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969). “An
essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear,
correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be
removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” Zletz, 893 F.2d at
321, 13 USPQ2d at 1322.
On this record, we are unconvinced that the examiner’s broad reading of
“continuous transmission” is in error. We sustain the rejection of claim 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Johnson.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007