Appeal No. 2005-2642
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,841
Freeman, 30 F.3d at 1466, 31 USPQ2d at 1449. The district court action at issue here
concluded with a dismissal rather than with a judgment on validity or infringement.
In giving claims their broadest reasonable construction, the PTO will “tak[e] into
account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded
by the written description contained in the applicant's specification.” Morris, 127 F.3d at
1054, 44 USPQ2d at 1027. However, we are not permitted to read limitations from
the disclosed embodiments or examples into the claims. See American Academy, 367
F.3d at 1369, 70 USPQ2d at 1834:
We have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the
preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only
embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification. See
Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906 [69 USPQ2d
1801] (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Even when the specification describes only a
single embodiment, the claims of the patent will not be read restrictively
unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim
scope using ‘words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.’”);
Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 [63 USPQ2d
1374] (Fed. Cir. 2002).
The principal point of contention regarding the scope and meaning of the claims
is the
relationship between the rate of prior actual inflation and the resulting inflation
adjustments of the deposit and loan accounts. Appellant contends that the claims
require a continuous (i.e., nonstepped) relationship such that different amounts of prior
actual inflation will result in different inflation adjustments. For the following reasons,
we do not agree.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007