Appeal 2007-0924
Application 10/401,079
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.")
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).
In light of the above, we conclude that the structure in Appellant's
Specification corresponding to the means for storing objects is a container.
We further conclude that, while, in some embodiments, such container may
define a compartment for storing objects, such as pills, that is separate from
a compartment, which may be in either the container or the cap for the
container, for confining the ribbon, Appellant's Specification does not limit
the container to a structure which defines a separate compartment for storing
objects that is distinct from a compartment for confining the ribbon.
Wolfe's cover member 22b is a container that defines an internal space
in which an expandable structure (label 20b) having information typed or
written thereon (Wolfe, col. 5, ll. 41-42) is stored and can be manipulated,
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013