Appeal No. 2003-1561 Page 9
Application No. 09/632,840
the claim, the remaining claim limitations describe a product
which is self-contained and does not depend upon that phrase for
completeness. Thus, the claim language relates to an intended
use and merely describes a future condition which may or may not
later happen. What may or may not happen is not part of the
claimed invention. See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 958-59, 189
USPQ 149, 152 (CCPA 1976). Accordingly, we do not find that
argument persuasive.
Moreover, in determining the patentability of claims, the
PTO gives claim language its “broadest reasonable interpretation”
consistent with the specification and claims. In re Morris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citations
omitted). A claim term takes on its ordinary and accustomed
meaning unless the patentee demonstrates an intent to deviate
from that meaning by redefining the term in the intrinsic record
using words of “manifest exclusion or restriction.” Teleflex
Inc. v. Ficosa North America Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325, 63
USPQ2d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Having reviewed the specification, claims and prosecution
history, we determine that appellants used the recited
characteristic “capable of sticking and conforming to an animal’s
teeth” to emphasize a functional characteristic based on the
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007