--- סוף עמוד 68 ---
Correct delimitation was of the greatest possible importance to the" inventor, because if his patent covered something which was old the Patent was wholly bad. At the same time thre was the danger of Confining himself to a mere outline which gave delimitation but did not Invention. The one duty required him to state his invention in its most tell the public the best way within those limits of performing his Therefore in a very special form. Out of that has arisen the practice, general form and the other duty required him to state it in its best and . Which originally was perfectly optional, of having a separate part of the"specification primarily designed for delimitation נוכח האמור לעיל, אינני סבור כי יש לקבל את גישתו הפרשנית של הפרשנית של בית המשפט קמא, כי יש לפרש את התביעות ככל האפשר מתוך עצמן, ורק במקרה בו מתגלה אי-בהירות על פניהן מותר לפנות לתיאור. גישה זו איפיינה אמנם את פסיקתם של בתי המשפט בעבר (ראה, למשל, האסמכתאות שמביא 217,fox, supra, atוהיא משתמעת אולי מדברי השופט אשר בת"א (ת"א) 2051/69, בע"מ 250, אולם היא מותירה חוסר שלמות בפריסת הנתונים ובהבהרת, ובתי המשפט לא הוסיפו לאמצה, כפי שמובן מדבריו של שומר המגילות אברשד (evershed): It is... Legitimate and appropriate in approaching the construction of" thereby the necessary .the claims to read the specification as a whole Background is obtained and in some cases the meaning of the words used In the claims may be affected or defined by what is said in the body of the Carlton tyre .rosedale associated manufacturers ld. V) "specification .(., Per evershed m.r 69, at[33] (1960) .saving coy. Ld על ההיגיון הטמון בגישה פרשנית זו עמד ה- court of claimsהאמריקני בעניין 397- 396, at[13] (1967) autogiro company of america v. United states: Claims cannot be clear and unambiguous on their face. A comparison" Is trying to convey. Only by knowing the idea, can one decide how much must exist. The lucidity of a claim is determined in light of what ideas it Clear and unambiguous claim a rare occurrence... Shadow encumbes the reality. The very nature of words would make a Ones not only leaves one unsure what a rose is, but also unsure whether understanding the claims. The sanction of new words or hybrids from old allowing the patentee verbal license only augments the difficulty of No matter how clear a claim appears to be, a rose is a rose. Thus we find that a claim cannot be interpreted without .going beyond the claim itself . Lurking in the background are documents that may completely disrupt"initial views on its meaning