Appeal No. 2000-2263
Application No. 08/925,387
problem solved by Appellants' invention because it lacks a
replaceable ink cartridge and, therefore, those necessarily
related elements. Appellants point out that Nakamura's ink
reservoir 31 is integral with interchangeable ink-jet type
printing head 31. Appellants further argue that Nakamura
contains absolutely no motivation to employ an ink feeding
needle slightly behind the free ends of the position
determining shafts as required in independent claim 8.
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. 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
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007