Appeal No. 2006-1604 Page 9
Application No. 09/903,201
Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must also be consistent with
the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright,
165 F.3d 1353, 1358, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The words
of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless applicant has provided
a clear definition in the specification. “When the applicant states the
meaning that the claim terms are intended to have, the claims are examined
with that meaning, in order to achieve a complete exploration of the
applicant’s invention and its relation to the prior art.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
We note that the plain meaning of the language recited in independent
claim 1 explicitly requires the controller to be “in the cable.” Likewise,
independent claim 11 explicitly requires a “cable containing a controller.”
We note that there is no language found in the instant specification that
disclaims or disavows the plain meaning argued by Appellants in the briefs.
The instant specification discloses: “a printer that has a controller integrated
in a printer cable” [specification, page 2, ¶0007]. The instant specification
further discloses: “A printer cable 120 that connects host computer 110 to
printer 130 includes a controller 128 that acts as a formatter” [specification,
p. 4, ¶0014]. Finally, the instant specification discloses: “In alternative
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007