Appeal No. 2004-1586
Application No. 10/132,863
[are] interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably
allow. When the applicant states the meaning that the
claim terms are intended to have, the claims are
examined with that meaning, in order to achieve a
complete exploration of the applicant’s invention and
its relation to the prior art . . . . The reason is
simply that during patent prosecution when claims can
be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and
breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed
. . . . Only in this way can uncertainties of claim
scope be removed, as much as possible, during the
administrative process.4
Limitations or embodiments appearing in the specification are not
read into the claims. Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal Ltd., 781 F.2d
861, 867, 228 USPQ 90, 93 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(“Generally, particular
limitations or embodiments appearing in the specification will
not be read into the claims”); In re Priest, 582 F.2d 33, 37, 199
USPQ 11, 15 (CCPA 1978), citing In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393,
1405, 162 USPQ 541, 551 (CCPA 1969)(“We have consistently held
that no ‘applicant should have limitations of the
specification[ ] read into a claim where no express statement of
the limitation[s] is included in the claim.’”).
Applying the above principles to the presently claimed
subject matter, we interpret the phrases “a panel fixedly secured
to said key retainer” and “a keychain assembly having a panel” in
4 In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322-23
(Fed. Cir. 1989).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007