Appeal No. 2004-1583
Application No. 09/760,962
consider the scope and meaning of certain terms that appear in
representative claim 28. Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454,
1457, 1460 n.3, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032, 1035 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1997);
In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed.
Cir. 1994). It is well settled that, in proceedings before the
PTO, claims in an application must be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation, taking into account any enlightenment
by way of definitions or otherwise found in the specification.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed.
Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320,
1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)(“During patent examination the pending
claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably
allow.”); In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934,936
(Fed. Cir. 1984)(“The PTO broadly interprets claims during
examination of a patent application since the applicant may
‘amend his claim to obtain protection commensurate with his
actual contribution to the art.’”)(quoting In re Prater, 415
F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969)).
3.) Accordingly, we confine our discussion to claim 28. 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(2003)(effective Apr. 21, 1995).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007