Appeal No. 1998-0998
Application 08/426,069
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, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671,
1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
We note that Appellants' claim 1 recites "a case having a recess formed in a
portion of a peripheral edge of said case adjacent and external to the shutter, defined by a
cutout across the entire thickness of the case, to receive an unlocking member from a
recording-reproducing unit." We note that the only other independent claim, claim 7,
recites a "case having a recess formed in a portion of a peripheral edge of said case
adjacent and external to the shutter, defined by a cutout across the entire thickness of the
case, to receive an unlocking member from a recording-reproducing unit." Thus, we find
that the scope of the claims before us require a recess formed in the peripheral edge of
the case adjacent and external to the shutter. Furthermore the claims before us require
that the recess is defined by a cutout across the entire thickness of the case.
Upon our review of Koyama, we fail to find that Koyama teaches or suggests these
limitations. In particular, Koyama teaches in Figures 8 and 11 that the shutter comprises
element 4 and slider element 3. We note that the recess is formed in the shutter. In
particular, Figure 11 shows the recess as element 18. Thus, Koyama does not teach a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007