Appeal No. 2006-2526
Application No. 10/377,942
terms in controversy may have some special meaning to the artisan.1 Nor, for that
matter, do appellants show that the general dictionary definition of any of the terms in
controversy might serve to distinguish over the applied prior art.
We do not consider it error to interpret the claim terms in ways that might result in
embracing subject matter beyond the disclosed embodiments. During prosecution
before the USPTO, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, and
the scope of a claim cannot be narrowed by reading disclosed limitations into the claim.
See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Prater, 415
F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969). Our reviewing court has
repeatedly warned against confining the claims to specific embodiments described in
the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1334
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). AAn essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion
claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can
uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative
process.@ In re Zletz, F.2d 893 at 322, 13 USPQ2d at 1322.
1 Appellants seem to allege (Brief at 14) that Aextending from@ has a special meaning in the art,
but do not provide evidence in support of the assertion. Arguments of counsel are not evidence. See,
e.g., Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782, 193 USPQ 17, 22 (CCPA 1977); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d
1399, 1405, 181 USPQ 641, 646 (CCPA 1974).
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007