Appeal No. 2005-1380
Application No. 09/944,314
on the basis of claim language, but upon giving claims their
broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification
as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’”
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329
(Fed. Cir. Jul. 12, 2005)(en banc), quoting In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). Of course, limitations from the specification should
not be imported into the claims, even if the preferred embodiment
is the only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the
specification. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., supra;
see also Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182,
1186-87, 48 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1998)(“there is
sometimes a fine line between reading a claim in light of the
specification, and reading a limitation into the claim from the
specification”).
Contrary to the examiner’s position (Answer, page 4), the
meaning of the term “texture” is not the only contested
limitation. As stated above, appellants also contest the meaning
of the terms “hearing instrument” and “imparting” (Brief, page 5;
Reply Brief, page 2). Accordingly, we must determine the proper
meaning and scope of all contested limitations. See Gechter v.
Davidson, supra. First, we turn to appellants’ specification for
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007