Appeal No. 2004-0716 Page 8
Application No. 09544,275
759, 221 USPQ 473, 477 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Second, it is equally
"fundamental that claims are to be construed in the light of the
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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007