Appeal 2007-2557
Application 10/094,866
banc). [This] proposition “serves the public interest by
reducing the possibility that claims, finally allowed, will be
given broader scope than is justified,” In re Yamamoto, 740
F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed.Cir.1984), and it
is not unfair to applicants, because “before a patent is granted
the claims are readily amended as part of the examination
process,” Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Quigg, 822 F.2d 1581,
1583, 3 USPQ2d 1436, 1438 (Fed.Cir.1987).
In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Thus, “the PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest
reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by
the written description contained in the applicant's specification.” In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
“Although the specification may aid the court in interpreting the
meaning of disputed language in the claims, particular embodiments . . . in
the specification will not generally be read into the claims.” Constant v.
Advanced Micro-Devices, 848 F.2d 1560, 1571, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1064 (Fed.
Cir. 1988). See also United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S.
228, 232 (1942) (“The claims measure the invention.”).
It is “the general rule that words in patent claims are given their
ordinary meaning in the usage of the field of the invention, unless the text of
the patent makes clear that a word was used with a special meaning.” Toro
Co. v. White Consol. Indus., 199 F.3d 1295, 1299, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1067
(Fed. Cir. 1999).
“In assessing whether subject matter would have been non-obvious
under § 103, the Board follows the guidance of the Supreme Court in
Graham v. John Deere Co. The Board determines ‘“the scope and content
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013