Appeal 2007-0483
Application 10/087,032
The claims, rather than arguments, are the place to define the scope of
the subject matter. The claims measure the invention. See SRI Int’l v.
Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121, 227 USPQ 577, 585 (Fed. Cir.
1985) (en banc). 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). 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, 550-51 (CCPA 1969). “An
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, 893 F.2d at 322, 13 USPQ2d at 1322.
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments with respect to
claim 12, but Appellants have not demonstrated error in the Examiner’s
rejection.
We further note that Appellants have received allowance of claims (1-
11) directed to a wireless mobile phone. Instant claim 12 is not directed to a
wireless mobile phone, or to the combination of a wireless mobile phone and
a wireless mobile phone headset. Claim 12 is directed to a wireless mobile
phone headset.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013