Appeal No. 2006-1772
Application No. 09/993,359
interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations appearing in the
specification will not be read into the claims. In re Etter 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ
1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In analyzing the scope of the claim, office personnel must rely on
the appellants’ disclosure to properly determine the meaning of the terms used in the
claims. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980, 34 USPQ2d 1321,
1330 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim ‘is not to be
confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is
improper.’” (emphasis original) In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343,
1348, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1205, (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Intervet America Inc v. Kee-Vet
Laboratories Inc. , 887 F.2d 1050, 1053, 12 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
The preamble of claim 109 states that the gaming machine is for playing a
“Bunco-type” game, we consider this limitation to be more than an intended use
limitation as the body of the claim further recites operations of the machine to implement
the game. The dependent claims also are directed to further describing the operations of
the machine to implement the game. However, we do not consider the recitation of a
“Bunco-type” game to incorporate all of the rules and operations of appellants’ disclosed
“Bunco-type” game as to do such would be adding an extraneous limitation appearing in
the specification defeat the doctrine of claim differentiation. Thus, we consider the claim
term “Bunco-type” in the preamble of claim 109 to be a title for the game as further
recited in the claim.
Claim 109 also recites, “a wager input mechanism which registers a wager placed
by a player.” We note that the claim does not recite when or how often a wager is placed.
Thus, the scope of the claim is broad and encompasses the situation where one wager is
placed by a player or the situation where more than one wager is placed by a player.
Thus, we do not find that the claim is limited to a wager in each stage of the game as
argued by appellants on page 6 of the reply brief.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007