Appeal 2007-1326
Application 10/237,067
1 12. Thus, as found by the Examiner, Young discloses a model train
2 system similar to that recited in the instant claims, including a track
3 interface unit and a communication circuit installed in each train, that
4 each train receives a power signal via contact with track rails, and that
5 the communication circuit is configured to receive in an input
6 communication signal and process the command signal independently of
7 the power signal. The Appellants do not dispute these findings.
8
9 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
10 Claim Construction
11 We begin with the language of the claims. The general rule is that terms in
12 the claim are to be given their ordinary and accustomed meaning. Johnson
13 Worldwide Assocs. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 989, 50 USPQ2d 1607, 1610
14 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In the USPTO, claims are construed giving their broadest
15 reasonable interpretation.
16 [T]he Board is required to use a different standard for construing
17 claims than that used by district courts. We have held that it is error
18 for the Board to “appl[y] the mode of claim interpretation that is used
19 by courts in litigation, when interpreting the claims of issued patents
20 in connection with determinations of infringement and validity.” In re
21 Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320[, 1322] (Fed. Cir. 1989);
22 accord In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed.
23 Cir. 1997) (“It would be inconsistent with the role assigned to the
24 PTO in issuing a patent to require it to interpret claims in the same
25 manner as judges who, post-issuance, operate under the assumption
26 the patent is valid.”). Instead, as we explained above, the PTO is
27 obligated to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation
28 during examination.
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013