Ex Parte Rodriguez et al - Page 7



          Appeal No. 2004-0716                                             Page 7            
          Application No. 09544,275                                                          

          Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Laboratories Corp., 859 F.2d 878,                      
          882, 8 USPQ2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1988).  Accordingly, we will                   
          initially direct our attention to appellants' claim 1 to derive                    
          an understanding of the scope and content thereof.                                 
                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,                  





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007