Appeal No. 2006-1908 Page 4
Application No. 10/371,161
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.3d 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.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
As the examiner noted on page 6 in the Answer, the specification states only
that the troughs are preferably defined between a pair of flanges which project
inwardly with respect to the axis and extend longitudinally downwardly so as to
direct product moving downwardly along the chute. As such, the specification
does not require the troughs to be “elongated” structures as asserted by the
appellant. Further, it appears from the definitions provided by the appellant that
the definition of “trough” varies depending on the context in which the word is
used. For example, the first definition provided by the appellant relates to a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007