Appeal 2006-3349
Application 09/908,360
axles 43, 44 of the upper robot 32 are coaxial with the drive axles 43,
44 of the lower robot 33. Accordingly, Kojima’s two robot drive
assembly includes four coaxial shafts (drive axles 43, 44 of upper
robot 32 and drive axles 43, 44 of lower robot 33) oriented along a
vertically oriented longitudinal axis. The drive components (motors
41, 42, drive axles 43, 44, etc.) of the upper and lower robots 32, 33
are connected to one another through the cases 40 of the upper and
lower robots and the upper and lower walls of the transfer chamber 10
to form a drive assembly. (Kojima Translation 4-5.)
DISCUSSION
We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications “not
solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their
broadest reasonable 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, 1868-69
(Fed. Cir. 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.”)
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013