Appeal No. 2000-1634 Page 6
Application No. 09/093,279
prior art. Claim interpretation must begin with the language
of the claim itself. See Smithkline Diagnostics, Inc. v.
Helena Laboratories Corp., 859 F.2d 878, 882, 8 USPQ2d 1468,
1472 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
In this instance, we must construe the meaning of the
phrase "a generally U-shaped member" as used in claim 1 under
appeal. In proceedings before it, the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO) applies to the verbiage of the claims before
it the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions
or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description
contained in the appellants' specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In
view of the discussion of this phrase set forth in the
paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4 of the specification and
Figures 1 to 5, we understand the phrase "a generally U-shaped
member having two generally parallel opposing arms and a base"
to mean a U-shaped member having only two generally parallel
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007