Appeal 2007-0694
Reexamination Control 90/006,433
Patent 5,428,933
Id. at 1313, 75 USPQ2d at 1326.
Consistent with the principle that the claim construction inquiry
begins with the words of the claims, the “[c]laims of a patent may only be
limited to a preferred embodiment by the express declaration of the
patentee.” Playtex Products, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 400 F.3d 901,
907–08, 73 USPQ2d 2010, 2015 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst
Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1325, 65 USPQ2d 1385, 1392-93
(Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Because the claims are best understood in light of the
specification of which they are a part, however, courts must take extreme
care when ascertaining the proper scope of the claims, lest they
simultaneously import into the claims limitations that were unintended by
the patentee.”). This is especially true for applicants as an applicant can
resolve any ambiguity by amending the claim to contain the proposed
limitations from the specification.
Of course, the United States Patent & Trademark Office is tasked with
interpreting claims as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Indeed, Zletz
held that the Board erred in reading unwritten limitations into claims on
appeal and stated that it was incorrect for the Board to construe claims
narrowly, such as done in courts confronting issues of infringement and
validity.
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is a question of fact. Brown v.
3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001). A claim
is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is
found, either expressly or inherently described in a single prior art reference.
Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013