Appeal No. 2006-2919 Page 13
Application No. 10/291,955
We note that appellants have argued supra: “According to the
specification of the present invention, a biometric image is compared to
stored biometric data (See Specification, p. 4, lines 17-21)” [reply brief,
page 3, emphasis added]. We note that appellants assert that this requires
the stored biometric data to be located within the database in which the data
is stored [id.]. We further note that appellants conclude the bar code
information is not located in the cited references, since there is no database
to search [id.].
In response, we note that a database is not recited in representative
claim 1. While the instant specification may require the stored biometric
data to be located within a database, as argued by appellants, we find that
the broad language of representative claim 1 does not recite any such
limitation [reply brief, page 3]. Furthermore, the language of claim 1 does
not require biometric data to be located based on data read from a bar code,
as also argued by appellants [brief, page 7]. Indeed, a bar code is not
recited in claim 1. We find that appellants are impermissibly reading
limitations from the specification into the claims. A basic canon of claim
construction is that one may not read a limitation into a claim from the
written description. Renishaw plc v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d
1243, 1248, 48 USPQ2d 1117, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Although the claims
are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007