Appeal No. 2004-0619
Application No. 10/061,140
fact merely reflects that different types of notches exist (e.g.,
just as different types of other art recognized features, such as
transistors, exist).
In effect, it is the Appellants’ fundamental argument that
limitations from their specification should be read into the
appealed claims. Ironically, this same argument was advanced and
rejected in Comark Communications v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d at
1187, 48 USPQ2d at 1005. In that case, as here, the term
in question had a clear and well-defined meaning, and the
specification did not at all aid in an interpretation of the
term. Rather, the specification in that case, like the subject
specification, merely disclosed details regarding the feature
under consideration which the court refused to read into the claims
before it. Analogously, we likewise will not read into the claims
before us limitations which appear only in the Appellants’
specification.
On page 4 of the brief, the Appellants also advance the
following argument:
In addition where the specification of a
patent describes a single embodiment the
corresponding claims are limited to this
embodiment, Winner International Royalty
Corp.[v. Wang], 202 F.3d 1340, 53 USPQ 2d 1580
(Fed. Cir. 2000). In the specification on
appeal the only embodiment of the notch
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007