Appeal No. 95-5061 Application 07/825,979 modeling to the extent claimed. The Examiner argues that Appellants' specification on page 11, lines 9-10, defines a computer system model as a "software module, a subprogram." The Examiner argues that by this definition Luke teach tasks and subtasks which meets Appellants' claimed "model". Our reviewing court states in In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) that "claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow." Moreover, when interpreting a claim, words of the claim are generally given their ordinary and accustomed meaning, unless it appears from the specification or the file history that they were used differently by the inventor. Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Sys., Inc. 15 F.3d 1573, 1577, 27 USPQ2d 1836, 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Although an inventor is indeed free to define the specific terms used to describe his or her invention, this must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Appellants argue on pages 3 and of the reply brief that Appellants' specification on page 11, lines 9 and 10 does not define a model but defines a node which is part of a larger 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007