Appeal No. 2004-0984
Application No. 09/501,970 Page 8
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 Furuya 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, 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007