Ex Parte Diaz et al - Page 5



             Appeal No. 2006-1554                                                   Page 5                     
             Application No. 10/369,819                                                                           
                    We disagree with the examiner that in normal use the front panel (209)                        
             would be in a hidden position.  We interpret “normally hidden” as used by the                        
             appellants in the claims “not solely on the basis of the 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. 2005) (quoting In re Am.                        
             Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir.                       
             2004)).  We must be careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the                     
             written description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the                         
             embodiment.  See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.2d 870,                        
             875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim                          
             language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is                    
             important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim.  For                
             example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be                     
             read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.”)  The                     
             challenge is to interpret claims in view of the specification without unnecessarily                  
             importing limitations from the specification into the claims.  See E-Pass Techs.,                    
             Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.2d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir.                             
             2003).                                                                                               
                    The specification throughout refers to the “normal operating position” of the                 
             computer (as shown, for example, in Figure 1) and describes that “an outer casing                    
             270 is provided which may be mounted on housing 12 through locking                                   
             engagement of casing portions with the housing and other casing portions to form                     
             an enclosure with no visible means of unlocking the casing when the computer is                      
             [in] its normal operating position.”  Specification, page 39, lines 19-23.  The                      





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007