Appeal No. 2006-2280 Page 15
Application No. 10/244,011
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) (en banc) (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).
We remind appellant that it is their burden to precisely define the invention,
not the PTO’s. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). Appellant always have the opportunity to amend the claims during
prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that
the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re
Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).
The specification discusses the frictional engagement between the support
and an edge of a table as follows:
The support device 20 is positioned above the center of
gravity of the crutch 22. Consequently, when the bottom
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007