Appeal No. 2006-1676
Application No. 10/384,882
otherwise it may provide to construing claim language. Id. When
interpreting a claim, the specification is usually the single
best guide to the meaning of disputed claim language. Phillips
v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 1321, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327,
1332 (Fed. Cir. 2005), cert. denied sub nom., 126 S. Ct. 1332
(2006). However, when reading a claim in light of its
specification, limitations from the specification must not be
imported into the claim. Id. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d at
1323, 75 USPQ2d at 1334. A careful reading of a specification
will usually indicate whether applicants are setting out
specific examples for the purpose of enabling his invention or
if applicant instead intends for his claims and his embodiments
in the specification to be strictly coextensive. Id. (citing
SciMed Life Sys. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., 242 F.3d 1337,
1341, 58 USPQ2d 1059, 1062-63 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Also, where
applicants have disclaimed or disavowed scope of claim coverage,
by using words or expressions of manifest exclusion or
restriction in the specification, representing a clear disavowal
of claim scope, such language will be used in interpreting the
claim scope. Id. Phillips v. AWH Corporation, 415 F.3d at 1319,
75 USPQ2d at 1331 (citing Texas Digital v. Telegenix, 308 F.3d
1193, 1204, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1819 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The court in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007