Appeal No. 96-2520
Application 07/891,852
at a single point, would produce a metal diaphragm that would
not have the proper rigidity, weight and mechanical strength
parameters.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. "[T]he name of the game is
the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d
1523,
1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 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). Our
reviewing court stated 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."
We note that Appellant's claim 4 recites "all of
said diaphragm . . . being formed in a single integral piece."
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007