Appeal 2006-3369
Application 10/224,309
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730
F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Our reviewing court states in In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) that “claims must be interpreted as
broadly as their terms reasonably allow.” Our reviewing court further states,
“[t]he terms used in the claims bear a ‘heavy presumption’ that they mean
what they say and have the ordinary meaning that would be attributed to
those words by persons skilled in the relevant art.” Texas Digital Sys. Inc v.
Telegenix Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1817 (Fed. Cir.
2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1058 (2003).
ANALYSIS
In applying the principles of claim interpretation to the claims in this
application, we appreciate Appellant’s position that claims are to be given
their common meaning, in view of the specification. However we find that
the claim language used for Appellant’s invention does not preclude reading
on Gullotta’s method and system. As an example, Appellant’s “policy
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013