Appeal 2007-1281
Application 10/104,386
1 ANALYSIS
2 Claim Interpretation
3 Appellant states that the bonding area of the slider is provided on the
4 opposite side of the flexure to that of the conventional HGA (FF 1). To
5 illustrate this feature, Appellant’s Fig. 1.1 illustrates a conventional FSA
6 type of HGA configuration which shows bound pads 32 and bump pads 41
7 being located on the left side of the slider 40, whereas Appellant’s Fig. 2.1
8 illustrates the bump pads 41 and the bound pads 32 being located on the
9 right side of the slider 40.
10 The language of original claim 1 is consistent with Appellant’s
11 disclosure. However, this original language was changed to “is provided on
12 the opposite side of trace connections for the traces.” For reasons addressed
13 below, we find this new language to be misdescriptive of the invention.
14 However, for purposes of addressing the claim language as presented to us,
15 we shall interpret the meaning of “bonding area” as used in claim 1.
16 The Board is required to use a different standard for construing claims
17 than that used by district courts. We have held that it is error for the Board
18 to “appl[y] the mode of claim interpretation that is used by courts in
19 litigation, when interpreting the claims of issued patents in connection with
20 determinations of infringement and validity.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321
21 (Fed. Cir. 1989); accord In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
22 (“It would be inconsistent with the role assigned to the PTO in issuing a
23 patent to require it to interpret claims in the same manner as judges who,
24 post-issuance, operate under the assumption the patent is valid.”). Instead,
25 as we explained above, the PTO is obligated to give claims their broadest
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013