Appeal No. 2006- 1669
Application No. 10/476,257
1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005)), we also recognize the distinction between using the
specification to interpret the meaning of a claim and importing limitations from the
specification into the claim. We can discern the line between construing terms and
importing limitations with reasonable certainty and predictability by remaining
focused on understanding how a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand the claim terms. See Phillipps, 415 F.3d at 1323, 75 USPQ2d at 1334.
For instance, although the specification may describe very specific embodiments of
the invention, our reviewing court has repeatedly warned against confining the
claims to those embodiments. Id.
As mentioned in our decision (p. 3), the appellant’s specification does not
expressly state that the winglet 12 is “fixed,” much less define the term “winglet”
as being a structure fixedly mounted to the wing. The appellant’s implication on
page 4 of the request that the appellant’s specification, at page 1, line 4, defines
“winglet” as “a fixed upturned tip on a wing” is a misrepresentation. Appellant’s
specification, at page 1, lines 4-7, reads “A winglet generally takes the form of an
upturned tip on a wing or other flying surface on an aircraft although the term
‘winglet’ may also embrace an end plate which extends both above and below the
upper and lower surfaces at the tip of a wing or other flying surface.” The term
“fixed” is not used therein. The fact that one skilled in the art might infer from the
appellant’s specification, in particular the problems to be solved by the invention,
that the winglet 12 described in the specification is fixed to the wing no more
constitutes a definition of “winglet” as being fixed to the wing than the
specification’s description of the winglet 12 as having a moveable control surface
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007