Appeal 2006-3331
Application 10/829,797
2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the
explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into
a claim limitations that are not a 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).
The Appellant’s Specification does not provide any definition of the phrase
“personal identification access information,” and the Appellant fails to point to any
specific part of the Specification as support for the proposed definition (Finding of
Fact 1). In fact, we could not find any instance in the Appellant’s Specification
where this phrase is used (Finding of Fact 1). Rather, the Specification uses the
phrase “personal identification information” and describes in one example that this
information may be a personal identification number or PIN (Finding of Fact 2).
Further, others of the pending claims specifically recite a “confidential personal
identification number” (see e.g., claims 2, 17, 19, and 24), but the Appellant chose
to use the broader phrase “personal identification access information” in
independent claims 1, 15, and 18. It is the appellants’ 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). Appellants 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
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013