Appeal 2007-0554
Reexamination Nos. 90/006,118 & 90/006,254
Patent 6,196,681 B1
5. A unitary structure in accordance with claim 2 constructed and
arranged to position the lens portions to provide a series of
vertical venting areas between the inside surface of the lens
portions and the unitary structure.
Generally, “in proceedings before the PTO, claims in an application
are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification.” In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ385, 388 (Fed.
Cir. 1983). The same is true in reexamination proceedings. In re
Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
“The reason is simply that during . . . prosecution when claims can be
amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language
explored, and clarification imposed.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). When the supporting specification
provides a narrower definition of the claim language, the claims shall be
read accordingly. Id.:
During . . . examination the pending claims must be interpreted
as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. When the applicant states
the meaning that the claim terms are intended to have, the claims are
examined with that meaning, in order to achieve a complete
exploration of the applicant’s invention and its relation to the prior art.
However, when the specification lacks a clear term definition, the language
of the claims, and accordingly the scope and content of the claimed subject
matter, should be interpreted as broadly as the specification will otherwise
reasonably allow.
Here, when we refer to Appellant’s Specification, we refer to
Canavan, U.S. Patent 6,196,681, issued March 6, 2001 (hereafter
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013