Appeal No. 2004-0706
Application No. 09/777,982
quite different than the connectors disclosed by McClure,
particularly when such claim limitations are interpreted in light
of the specification. In this regard, the appellants point to
the description in the specification of exemplary devices (24,
60) comprising an electrical film element (e.g. a resistor 28 or
capacitor 64) disposed on a substrate or base (30, 70) having two
outer end caps (36, 72, 74) for mounting and electrically
connecting the device to the surface of a conductive substrate
(16, 50). To buttress their position, the appellants also rely
on selected portions of an electronics handbook and catalog
appended to the brief as Items B and C.
It is well settled that during patent examination, claims
are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the underlying specification without reading limitations
from the specification into the claims. In re Prater, 415 F.2d
1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969). Even under this
standard, which is somewhat less restrictive than that set forth
in the infringement cases cited by the appellants,4 the
examiner’s interpretation of the claim language in question is
unduly broad, stemming as it does from a unreasonable parsing of
4 See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320,
1321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007