Appeal fails in Ex parte Vinarov

From within Ex parte VINAROV    , wherein the Board sustained the Examiner.

1. The independent claims recite either structure or step of distributing
   
2. 14  information. This information is “for OSS purposes.” Thus the structure
   
3. 15  and step simply distributes the patient information collected by the recited
   
4. 16  front end. How data are narrowed for OSS purposes is unspecified. The
   
5. 17  specific data is neither positively recited nor defined in the claim. There is
   
6. 18  no lexicographic definition of OSS data in the disclosure. The claims do not
   
7. 19  functionally use the data. Thus, not only is the characterization of “for OSS
   
8. 20  purposes” unrestrictive, it is deserving of no patentable weight. See In re
   
9. 21  Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

AND

1. Though understanding the claim language may be aided by
   
2. 2  explanations contained in the written description, it is important
   
3. 3  not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the
   
4. 4  claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the
   
5. 5  written description may not be read into a claim when the claim
   
6. 6  language is broader than the embodiment.
   
7. 7  Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
   
8. 8  2004).