mdroth/huggingface-course_section-5_zst huggingface dataset:
Case: Interlego AG v Toltoys Pty Ltd [1973] HCA 1 ; (1973) 130 CLR 461
Outcome: followed
It is well established that the claims contained in the specification set out the legal limits of the monopoly. Yet, when construing the claims and determining the nature and extent of this monopoly it is necessary to consider the context in which the claims are made. This requires a consideration of the specification as a whole even if there is no apparent ambiguity in the claim; Minnesota Mining &amp; Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) Ltd [1980] HCA 9 ; (1980) 144 CLR 253 (' Minnesota Mining ') at 267-272; D&eacute;cor at 410-411; Beltreco at [75]-[78]. The specification is made up of several parts which have different functions: Welch Perrin &amp; Co Pty Ltd v Worrel [1960] HCA 91 ; (1961) 106 CLR 588 (' Welch Perrin ') at 610; D&eacute;cor at 391, 398; Beltreco at [73]. Nevertheless, reference to it as a whole may explain or elucidate the background to the claims, assist in ascertaining the meaning of a technical term or in resolving ambiguities in the construction of claims: Martin v Scribal Pty Ltd [1954] HCA 48 ; (1954) 92 CLR 17 (' Martin ') per Taylor J at 97; Welch Perrin at 610-611; Electric &amp; Musical Industries Ltd v Lissen Ltd (1939) 56 RPC 23 (' Electric &amp; Musical Industries ') at 41-42, Interlego AG v Toltoys Pty Ltd [1973] HCA 1 ; (1973) 130 CLR 461 (' Interlego ') at 478-479; D&eacute;cor at 400; Sartas No 1 Pty Ltd v Koukourou &amp; Partners Pty Ltd (1994) 30 IPR 479 (' Sartas ') at 486; Beltreco at [75]. 17 It is important, however, that the focus of the inquiry remain on the claims under consideration. If claims are clear and unambiguous, they are not to be varied, qualified or made obscure by statements found in other parts of the patent: Welch Perrin at 610; Interlego at 478-479; Electric &amp; Musical Industries at 41; Rosedale Associated Manufacturers Ltd v Carlton Tyre Saving Co Ltd [1960] RPC 59 at 69; Cooper Industries Inc v Metal Manufactures Ltd (1994) 29 IPR 106 at 113; Lantech Inc v First Green Park Pty Ltd (1995) 31 IPR 327 at 333; Beltreco at [74]. It is not legitimate to narrow or expand the boundaries of the monopoly as fixed by the words of the claims by adding to those words a gloss drawn from other parts of the specification: Welch Perrin at 610; D&eacute;cor at 391, 398; Braas &amp; Co GmbH v Humes Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 273 at 284; Beltreco at [74]. 19 As a general rule, the terms used in a specification should be accorded their ordinary English meaning. Put another way, the terms must be understood in a practical, commonsense manner: Electric &amp; Musical Industries at 41; Elconnex Pty Ltd v Gerard Industries Pty Ltd (1991) 32 FCR 491 at 512-513; Interlego at 478; Minnesota Mining at 270; Nesbit Evans Group Australia Pty Ltd v Impro Ltd (1997) 39 IPR 56 at 95; Martin Engineering Co v Trison Holdings Pty Ltd (1989) 14 IPR 330 at 338.
Case: Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Limited v Arico Trading International Pty Limited [2001] HCA 8 ; (2001) 207 CLR 1
Outcome: followed
The hypothetical addressee of the patent specification is the non-inventive person skilled in the art before the priority date: Welch Perrin at 610; Populin v HB Nominees Pty Ltd (1982) 41 ALR 471 (' Populin ') at 476-477; Fisher &amp; Paykel Healthcare Pty Ltd v Avion Engineering Pty Ltd (1991) 103 ALR 239 at 260; D&eacute;cor at 397; Stanway Oyster Cylinders Pty Ltd v Marks (1996) 66 FCR 577 at 582-583; Beltreco at [81]; Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Limited v Arico Trading International Pty Limited [2001] HCA 8 ; (2001) 207 CLR 1 at [24] ; Gambro Pty Ltd v Fresenius Medical Care South East Asia Pty Ltd (2004) 61 IPR 442 at [113]; Rhone-Poulenc Agrochimie SA v UIM Chemical Services Pty Ltd (1986) 12 FCR 477 at 496; NV Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken v Mirabella International Pty Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 513 (' NV Philips ') at 531; Catnic at 225; Wheatley (Davina) v Drillsafe Ltd [2001] RPC 7 at 141 142. Thus, the words used in a specification are to be given the meaning that the hypothetical addressee would attach to them, both in the light of his or her own general knowledge and what is disclosed in the body of the specification: D&eacute;cor at 391; Photocure at [170].
Case: Lantech Inc v First Green Park Pty Ltd (1995) 31 IPR 327
Outcome: followed
It is important, however, that the focus of the inquiry remain on the claims under consideration. If claims are clear and unambiguous, they are not to be varied, qualified or made obscure by statements found in other parts of the patent: Welch Perrin at 610; Interlego at 478-479; Electric &amp; Musical Industries at 41; Rosedale Associated Manufacturers Ltd v Carlton Tyre Saving Co Ltd [1960] RPC 59 at 69; Cooper Industries Inc v Metal Manufactures Ltd (1994) 29 IPR 106 at 113; Lantech Inc v First Green Park Pty Ltd (1995) 31 IPR 327 at 333; Beltreco at [74]. It is not legitimate to narrow or expand the boundaries of the monopoly as fixed by the words of the claims by adding to those words a gloss drawn from other parts of the specification: Welch Perrin at 610; D&eacute;cor at 391, 398; Braas &amp; Co GmbH v Humes Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 273 at 284; Beltreco at [74].
Case: Leonardis v Sartas No 1 Pty Ltd (1996) 67 FCR 126
Outcome: followed
Evidence can be given by experts on the meaning which those skilled in the art would give to technical or scientific terms and phrases and on unusual or special meanings given by such persons to words that might otherwise bear their ordinary meaning: Sartas at 485-486; NV Philips at 531-532; Leonardis v Sartas No 1 Pty Ltd (1996) 67 FCR 126 at 137-138; Patent Gesellschaft AG v Saudi Livestock Transport and Trading Co (1996) 33 IPR 426 (' Patent Gesellschaft ') at 455.
Case: Martin v Scribal Pty Ltd [1954] HCA 48 ; (1954) 92 CLR 17
Outcome: followed
It is well established that the claims contained in the specification set out the legal limits of the monopoly. Yet, when construing the claims and determining the nature and extent of this monopoly it is necessary to consider the context in which the claims are made. This requires a consideration of the specification as a whole even if there is no apparent ambiguity in the claim; Minnesota Mining &amp; Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) Ltd [1980] HCA 9 ; (1980) 144 CLR 253 (' Minnesota Mining ') at 267-272; D&eacute;cor at 410-411; Beltreco at [75]-[78]. The specification is made up of several parts which have different functions: Welch Perrin &amp; Co Pty Ltd v Worrel [1960] HCA 91 ; (1961) 106 CLR 588 (' Welch Perrin ') at 610; D&eacute;cor at 391, 398; Beltreco at [73]. Nevertheless, reference to it as a whole may explain or elucidate the background to the claims, assist in ascertaining the meaning of a technical term or in resolving ambiguities in the construction of claims: Martin v Scribal Pty Ltd [1954] HCA 48 ; (1954) 92 CLR 17 (' Martin ') per Taylor J at 97; Welch Perrin at 610-611; Electric &amp; Musical Industries Ltd v Lissen Ltd (1939) 56 RPC 23 (' Electric &amp; Musical Industries ') at 41-42, Interlego AG v Toltoys Pty Ltd [1973] HCA 1 ; (1973) 130 CLR 461 (' Interlego ') at 478-479; D&eacute;cor at 400; Sartas No 1 Pty Ltd v Koukourou &amp; Partners Pty Ltd (1994) 30 IPR 479 (' Sartas ') at 486; Beltreco at [75].
Case: Minnesota Mining &amp; Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) Ltd [1980] HCA 9 ; (1980) 144 CLR 253
Outcome: followed
It is well established that the claims contained in the specification set out the legal limits of the monopoly. Yet, when construing the claims and determining the nature and extent of this monopoly it is necessary to consider the context in which the claims are made. This requires a consideration of the specification as a whole even if there is no apparent ambiguity in the claim; Minnesota Mining &amp; Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) Ltd [1980] HCA 9 ; (1980) 144 CLR 253 (' Minnesota Mining ') at 267-272; D&eacute;cor at 410-411; Beltreco at [75]-[78]. The specification is made up of several parts which have different functions: Welch Perrin &amp; Co Pty Ltd v Worrel [1960] HCA 91 ; (1961) 106 CLR 588 (' Welch Perrin ') at 610; D&eacute;cor at 391, 398; Beltreco at [73]. Nevertheless, reference to it as a whole may explain or elucidate the background to the claims, assist in ascertaining the meaning of a technical term or in resolving ambiguities in the construction of claims: Martin v Scribal Pty Ltd [1954] HCA 48 ; (1954) 92 CLR 17 (' Martin ') per Taylor J at 97; Welch Perrin at 610-611; Electric &amp; Musical Industries Ltd v Lissen Ltd (1939) 56 RPC 23 (' Electric &amp; Musical Industries ') at 41-42, Interlego AG v Toltoys Pty Ltd [1973] HCA 1 ; (1973) 130 CLR 461 (' Interlego ') at 478-479; D&eacute;cor at 400; Sartas No 1 Pty Ltd v Koukourou &amp; Partners Pty Ltd (1994) 30 IPR 479 (' Sartas ') at 486; Beltreco at [75]. 19 As a general rule, the terms used in a specification should be accorded their ordinary English meaning. Put another way, the terms must be understood in a practical, commonsense manner: Electric &amp; Musical Industries at 41; Elconnex Pty Ltd v Gerard Industries Pty Ltd (1991) 32 FCR 491 at 512-513; Interlego at 478; Minnesota Mining at 270; Nesbit Evans Group Australia Pty Ltd v Impro Ltd (1997) 39 IPR 56 at 95; Martin Engineering Co v Trison Holdings Pty Ltd (1989) 14 IPR 330 at 338. 22 Ultimately, however, the construction of the specification is for the court, not for the expert witness. Insofar as a view expressed by an expert depends upon a reading of the patent, it cannot carry the day unless the court reads the patent in the same way: Allsop Inc v Bintang Ltd (1989) 15 IPR 686, 697. See also Glaverbel SA v British Coal Corp [1994] RPC 443 at 486; Sartas at 485-486; Patent Gesellschaft at 455. Further, if the evidence before the court does not establish that a technical meaning is to be given to a term, it is to be given its ordinary meaning: Electric &amp; Musical Industries at 226; Minnesota Mining at 279; Patent Gesellschaft at 455; Photocure at [170].
Case: Nesbit Evans Group Australia Pty Ltd v Impro Ltd (1997) 39 IPR 56
Outcome: followed
As a general rule, the terms used in a specification should be accorded their ordinary English meaning. Put another way, the terms must be understood in a practical, commonsense manner: Electric &amp; Musical Industries at 41; Elconnex Pty Ltd v Gerard Industries Pty Ltd (1991) 32 FCR 491 at 512-513; Interlego at 478; Minnesota Mining at 270; Nesbit Evans Group Australia Pty Ltd v Impro Ltd (1997) 39 IPR 56 at 95; Martin Engineering Co v Trison Holdings Pty Ltd (1989) 14 IPR 330 at 338.
Case: Nicaro Holdings Pty Ltd v Martin Engineering Co (1989-1990) 16 IPR 545
Outcome: followed
A patent specification should be given a purposive rather than a purely literal construction: Catnic Components Ltd v Hill &amp; Smith Ltd [1982] RPC 183 (' Catnic ') at 242-243; D&eacute;cor at 400; Improver Corporation v Remington Consumer Products Ltd [1990] FSR 181 (' Improver '); Nicaro Holdings Pty Ltd v Martin Engineering Co (1989-1990) 16 IPR 545 at 560-561; Commonwealth Industrial Gases Ltd v M W A Holdings Pty Ltd (1970) 44 ALJR 385 at 388; Beltreco at [81]; Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoeschst Marion Roussel Ltd (2004) 64 IPR 444 (' Kirin-Amgen '); Sachtler at [43]-[67]. It is inappropriate, however, to approach construction of the specification with a view to being 'fair' to the patentee; Kirin-Amgen at [33]; Sachtler at [60]. The fact that the monopoly is granted in consideration for the disclosure of the invention to the general knowledge base of society must be recognised: Beltreco at [70]. Indeed, the principles governing a definition of a monopoly operating over the public at large require a description of the claims that 'is not reasonably capable of misunderstanding': Martin at 59. The patentee must define the invention with sufficient precision to permit the monopoly to be determined and allow the general public to identify from the words of the claims the conduct prohibited: British United Shoe Machinery Co Ltd v A Fussell &amp; Sons Ltd (1908) 25 RPC 631 at 650-651. The public are entitled to be able to design around the monopoly claimed in a patent and therefore they must be able to determine reliably the scope of the claims: Beloit Technologies Inc v Valmat Paper Machinery Inc [1895] 24 RPC 705 at 720.
Case: Nobel's Explosives Co Ltd v Anderson (1894) 11 RPC 519
Outcome: followed
The ordinary rules of construction that apply to any written instrument are applicable to the construction of the specification of a patent: Nobel's Explosives Co Ltd v Anderson (1894) 11 RPC 519 at 523; D&eacute;cor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1988) 13 IPR 385 (' D&eacute;cor ') at 391, 400; Photocure at [168]. However, there are also a number of special considerations that are relevant to the construction of a patent. The general basis for these rules was explained by Hely J in Beltreco at [70]: 'A patent is a public instrument which grants the right to protection of a defined monopoly, for the consideration of the disclosure of the invention to the general knowledge base of society. It is the need for balance between these symbiotic, yet competing interests which underscores the rules of patent construction.'
Case: NV Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken v Mirabella International Pty Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 513
Outcome: followed
The hypothetical addressee of the patent specification is the non-inventive person skilled in the art before the priority date: Welch Perrin at 610; Populin v HB Nominees Pty Ltd (1982) 41 ALR 471 (' Populin ') at 476-477; Fisher &amp; Paykel Healthcare Pty Ltd v Avion Engineering Pty Ltd (1991) 103 ALR 239 at 260; D&eacute;cor at 397; Stanway Oyster Cylinders Pty Ltd v Marks (1996) 66 FCR 577 at 582-583; Beltreco at [81]; Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Limited v Arico Trading International Pty Limited [2001] HCA 8 ; (2001) 207 CLR 1 at [24] ; Gambro Pty Ltd v Fresenius Medical Care South East Asia Pty Ltd (2004) 61 IPR 442 at [113]; Rhone-Poulenc Agrochimie SA v UIM Chemical Services Pty Ltd (1986) 12 FCR 477 at 496; NV Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken v Mirabella International Pty Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 513 (' NV Philips ') at 531; Catnic at 225; Wheatley (Davina) v Drillsafe Ltd [2001] RPC 7 at 141 142. Thus, the words used in a specification are to be given the meaning that the hypothetical addressee would attach to them, both in the light of his or her own general knowledge and what is disclosed in the body of the specification: D&eacute;cor at 391; Photocure at [170]. 21 Evidence can be given by experts on the meaning which those skilled in the art would give to technical or scientific terms and phrases and on unusual or special meanings given by such persons to words that might otherwise bear their ordinary meaning: Sartas at 485-486; NV Philips at 531-532; Leonardis v Sartas No 1 Pty Ltd (1996) 67 FCR 126 at 137-138; Patent Gesellschaft AG v Saudi Livestock Transport and Trading Co (1996) 33 IPR 426 (' Patent Gesellschaft ') at 455.
Case: Patent Gesellschaft AG v Saudi Livestock Transport and Trading Co (1996) 33 IPR 426
Outcome: followed
Evidence can be given by experts on the meaning which those skilled in the art would give to technical or scientific terms and phrases and on unusual or special meanings given by such persons to words that might otherwise bear their ordinary meaning: Sartas at 485-486; NV Philips at 531-532; Leonardis v Sartas No 1 Pty Ltd (1996) 67 FCR 126 at 137-138; Patent Gesellschaft AG v Saudi Livestock Transport and Trading Co (1996) 33 IPR 426 (' Patent Gesellschaft ') at 455. 22 Ultimately, however, the construction of the specification is for the court, not for the expert witness. Insofar as a view expressed by an expert depends upon a reading of the patent, it cannot carry the day unless the court reads the patent in the same way: Allsop Inc v Bintang Ltd (1989) 15 IPR 686, 697. See also Glaverbel SA v British Coal Corp [1994] RPC 443 at 486; Sartas at 485-486; Patent Gesellschaft at 455. Further, if the evidence before the court does not establish that a technical meaning is to be given to a term, it is to be given its ordinary meaning: Electric &amp; Musical Industries at 226; Minnesota Mining at 279; Patent Gesellschaft at 455; Photocure at [170].
Case: Pinefair Pty Ltd v Bedford Industries Rehabilitation Association Inc (1998) 42 IPR 330
Outcome: cited
The Hercules Bag is manufactured, like other such bags (as detailed in the specification of the Patent), from an extruded tube of plastic. Initially therefore, there is no bag, merely a plastic tube. For this reason, Clorox did not claim that this was a case where infringement occurred during the manufacturing process: see, for instance, Pinefair Pty Ltd v Bedford Industries Rehabilitation Association Inc (1998) 42 IPR 330. After the plastic is blown through the extruder, the resulting tube is flattened. The longitudinal sides are 'gusseted', by effectively folding the longitudinal sides towards each other, so that they meet in the centre of the inside of the tube. This 'four-layered form' is then folded in half again resulting in an eight-layered form; that is one-quarter the size of the flattened extruded plastic tube. The tube's base (the third side) is then heat welded forming a 'star-shaped' weld. This feature marks, in essence, the practical difference between the plastic bag described in the Patent's specification and the Hercules Bag. 60 The gusseting of the longitudinal sides and the star-shaped welding of the base have both advantages and disadvantages in comparison to the bag described in the specification. For instance, the Hercules Bag has less capacity and uses more plastic material because of the way in which the base is welded. However, an advantage is that the Hercules Bag is able to be sold in packaging that is narrower than would otherwise be the case. This was said by Mr Caine to be attractive to retailers as the package fits in a supermarket basket and occupies less shelf space. It is also the case that the base weld is stronger and the Hercules Bag has greater tear strength. Dr Pullum also gave evidence that fewer manufacturing difficulties arose when cutting and/or serrating across a narrower portion of plastic. In other words, to cut or serrate across a portion one-eighth the width of the tube is less likely to involve manufacturing difficulties than performing the same action across the entire width of the extruded tube. Dr Pullum also stated that the Hercules Bag could be manufactured in multiple streams. 61 It is also important to note that the Hercules Bag is in an eight-layered form when sold. Consequently, in order to be used in the manner envisaged, the bag must; first, be torn from the other bags to which it is attached along the base and top sides; and secondly, 'opened' up such that refuse or garbage can be placed in the bag through the open top side. This latter action will necessarily mean that, except for the base weld, the bag will no longer be in an eight-layered form.
Case: Populin v HB Nominees Pty Ltd (1982) 41 ALR 471
Outcome: applied
The hypothetical addressee of the patent specification is the non-inventive person skilled in the art before the priority date: Welch Perrin at 610; Populin v HB Nominees Pty Ltd (1982) 41 ALR 471 (' Populin ') at 476-477; Fisher &amp; Paykel Healthcare Pty Ltd v Avion Engineering Pty Ltd (1991) 103 ALR 239 at 260; D&eacute;cor at 397; Stanway Oyster Cylinders Pty Ltd v Marks (1996) 66 FCR 577 at 582-583; Beltreco at [81]; Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Limited v Arico Trading International Pty Limited [2001] HCA 8 ; (2001) 207 CLR 1 at [24] ; Gambro Pty Ltd v Fresenius Medical Care South East Asia Pty Ltd (2004) 61 IPR 442 at [113]; Rhone-Poulenc Agrochimie SA v UIM Chemical Services Pty Ltd (1986) 12 FCR 477 at 496; NV Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken v Mirabella International Pty Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 513 (' NV Philips ') at 531; Catnic at 225; Wheatley (Davina) v Drillsafe Ltd [2001] RPC 7 at 141 142. Thus, the words used in a specification are to be given the meaning that the hypothetical addressee would attach to them, both in the light of his or her own general knowledge and what is disclosed in the body of the specification: D&eacute;cor at 391; Photocure at [170]. 25 A feature of a claim is considered essential if the hypothetical reader (that is, a reader skilled in the art before the priority date) would have understood from the language used in the claim, in the context of the specification as a whole, that the patentee intended that strict compliance was an essential requirement of the invention: Catnic at 243; D&eacute;cor at 400; Populin at 476; Beltreco at [81].
Case: PhotoCure ASA v Queen's University at Kingston (2005) 64 IPR 314
Outcome: approved
The parties are not in dispute as to the applicable principles which have been the subject of frequent discussion in the decisions of this Court: see, for instance, Flexible Steel Lacing Co v Beltreco Ltd (2000) 49 IPR 331 (' Beltreco '); PhotoCure ASA v Queen's University at Kingston (2005) 64 IPR 314 (' Photocure '); Sachtler GMBH &amp; Co KG v RE Miller Pty Ltd (2005) 221 ALR 373 (' Sachtler '). While it may be useful for me to set out some of the relevant principles I shall do so only briefly.
Case: Ransburg Co v Aerostyle Ltd [1968] RPC 287
Outcome: referred to
It is appropriate to consider the principles applicable to the construction of a patent and their application to the Patent's specification before addressing Clorox's claims of infringement: see CCOM Pty Ltd v Jiejing Pty Ltd (1994) 51 FCR 260 at 267-268 referring to Ransburg Co v Aerostyle Ltd [1968] RPC 287 per Lord Upjohn at 297. Indeed, it is important to ensure that consideration of the allegedly infringing product does not influence the determination of the proper construction of the claims.
Case: Rhone-Poulenc Agrochimie SA v UIM Chemical Services Pty Ltd (1986) 12 FCR 477
Outcome: followed
The hypothetical addressee of the patent specification is the non-inventive person skilled in the art before the priority date: Welch Perrin at 610; Populin v HB Nominees Pty Ltd (1982) 41 ALR 471 (' Populin ') at 476-477; Fisher &amp; Paykel Healthcare Pty Ltd v Avion Engineering Pty Ltd (1991) 103 ALR 239 at 260; D&eacute;cor at 397; Stanway Oyster Cylinders Pty Ltd v Marks (1996) 66 FCR 577 at 582-583; Beltreco at [81]; Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Limited v Arico Trading International Pty Limited [2001] HCA 8 ; (2001) 207 CLR 1 at [24] ; Gambro Pty Ltd v Fresenius Medical Care South East Asia Pty Ltd (2004) 61 IPR 442 at [113]; Rhone-Poulenc Agrochimie SA v UIM Chemical Services Pty Ltd (1986) 12 FCR 477 at 496; NV Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken v Mirabella International Pty Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 513 (' NV Philips ') at 531; Catnic at 225; Wheatley (Davina) v Drillsafe Ltd [2001] RPC 7 at 141 142. Thus, the words used in a specification are to be given the meaning that the hypothetical addressee would attach to them, both in the light of his or her own general knowledge and what is disclosed in the body of the specification: D&eacute;cor at 391; Photocure at [170].
Case: Rosedale Associated Manufacturers Ltd v Carlton Tyre Saving Co Ltd [1960] RPC 59
Outcome: followed
It is important, however, that the focus of the inquiry remain on the claims under consideration. If claims are clear and unambiguous, they are not to be varied, qualified or made obscure by statements found in other parts of the patent: Welch Perrin at 610; Interlego at 478-479; Electric &amp; Musical Industries at 41; Rosedale Associated Manufacturers Ltd v Carlton Tyre Saving Co Ltd [1960] RPC 59 at 69; Cooper Industries Inc v Metal Manufactures Ltd (1994) 29 IPR 106 at 113; Lantech Inc v First Green Park Pty Ltd (1995) 31 IPR 327 at 333; Beltreco at [74]. It is not legitimate to narrow or expand the boundaries of the monopoly as fixed by the words of the claims by adding to those words a gloss drawn from other parts of the specification: Welch Perrin at 610; D&eacute;cor at 391, 398; Braas &amp; Co GmbH v Humes Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 273 at 284; Beltreco at [74].