Appeal No. 2001-1848
Application 08/932,988
In the first place the examiner’s statement of the law as
quoted supra overlooks the qualifier that the interpretation of
the claim language must be consistent with the specification.
See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1052, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027
(Fed Cir 1997). Thus, the general rule is that the claims in
an application are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Bond,
910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Furthermore, technical terms, such as the terms “leader” and
“fly-fishing line,” are to be interpreted as having the
meanings that they would be given by persons experienced in the
field of the claimed invention, unless it appears that the
inventor applied a different meaning to those terms. See
Hoeschst Celanese Corp. v. BP Chem., Ltd., 78 F.3d 1575, 1578,
38 USPQ2d 1126, 1129 (Fed. Cir. 1996). See also In re Barr,
444 F.2d 588, 597, 170 USPQ 330, 339 (CCPA 1971) (Absent a
special definition in the specification, it must be assumed
that a technical term is used in its commonly accepted
technical sense.) and In re Morris, 127 F.3d at 1052, 44 USPQ2d
at 1027 (Terms in a claim are to be given the broadest
reasonable meaning as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art.).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007