Appeal No. 2000-1337
Application No. 08/955,002
art and of the particular application disclosure as it would
be interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill
in the pertinent art. Id. Unless the disclosure makes clear
that a special meaning was intended, words in a claim are
given their ordinary meaning in the usage of the field of the
invention; however, words of
ordinary usage must nonetheless be construed in the context of
the disclosure. See Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries
Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1299, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1067 (Fed. Cir.
1999).
The examiner’s concern with the recitations of the
“ports” (claims 1, 6 and 9), the “chamber” (claims 1, 6 and 9)
and the “apertured” fingers (claim 2) appears to be that while
these terms are consistent with the undisputedly clear
descriptions thereof in the underlying specification, both the
claims and the specification are misdescriptive because they
are inconsonant with the ordinary and accustomed meaning of
the terms. The examiner apparently views these ordinary and
accustomed meanings as requiring ports, apertures and chambers
to be bounded or enclosed about their entire effective
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007