Appeal No. 2006-3044 Page 9
Application No. 10/285,939
We begin our analysis by noting that “[d]uring patent examination, the
pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54
USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit has stated that the “broadest reasonable interpretation” rule
recognizes that “before a patent is granted the claims are readily amended
as part of the examination process.” Burlington Indus. v. Quigg, 822 F.2d
1581, 1583, 3 USPQ2d 1436, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Our reviewing court
has reaffirmed that a patent applicant has the opportunity and responsibility
to remove any ambiguity in claim term meaning by amending the
application. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (Fed.
Cir. 2004) (internal citation omitted). Finally, the broadest reasonable
interpretation rule “serves the public interest by reducing the possibility that
claims, finally allowed, will be given broader scope than is justified.” In re
Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830
(Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571-72, 222
USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
In the instant case, we agree with the examiner that the claim broadly
but reasonably reads on the Harriman reference in the manner asserted by
the examiner. We note that appellants have had ample opportunity to
amend their claims to eliminate any such ambiguity in claim term meaning.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007