Appeal No. 2005-2197 Page 3
Application No. 10/751,432
Answer (mailed April 14, 2005) for the Examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the Brief (filed April 1, 2005) and the Reply Brief (filed June 9, 2005)
for the Appellants’ arguments there against.
OPINION
We start with the claim language. Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457,
1460 n.3, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032, 1035 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In proceedings before the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), claims must be interpreted by giving words their
broadest reasonable meanings in their ordinary usage, taking into account the written
description found in the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997)("[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed
claims 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 applicant's specification."); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)("During patent examination the
pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.").
Here, the preamble of appealed claim 23 recites: “A hauler vehicle for mining
operation comprising...” It is by now axiomatic that the term "comprising" in a claim
not only alerts potential infringers that the recited components are essential, but that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007