Appeal No. 2005-0247 Page 4
Application No. 10/171,657
1. Claim Construction
"Analysis begins with a key legal question — what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). In answering the question, "the PTO gives claims their 'broadest reasonable
interpretation.'" In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir.
2000)). "Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification."
In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing
In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Here, claim 13 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "each of said
heating elements generating an annular bubble with balanced distribution within said
cavity, said annular bubbles each having a virtual chamber formed within the
corresponding annular bubbles and ink present in the virtual chamber is ejected through
a corresponding one of said nozzles." The examiner has correctly noted that "[w]hile
the Specification does teach that ink ejection can occur when the virtual chamber still
exists, . . . the Appellant [sic] has not claimed this feature." (Examiner's Answer at 9.)
In other words, the representative claim does not require that the virtual chamber still
exists at the moment ink is ejected. Giving claim 13 its broadest, reasonable
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007