Appeal No. 95-2909
Application 08/048,270
7). The examiner asserts that the recited paddles are readable
on elements 4 of Hribar. We do not agree.
It is fundamental that in construing claims, limitations
from the specification will not be read thereinto, Sjoland v.
Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1582, 6 USPQ2d 2020, 2027 (Fed. Cir.
1988), and they will be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Prater,
415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969). Words in a
claim will be given their ordinary and accustomed meaning, unless
it appears that the inventor used them differently. Envirotech
Corp. v. Al George, Inc., 730 F.2d 753, 759, 221 USPQ 473, 477
(Fed. Cir. 1984).
Applying these principles to the present case, it does not
appear that appellant used the term “paddle” other than in its
ordinary and accustomed meaning; therefore, we turn to the
dictionary in order to construe the term. Cf. Nike Inc. v.
Wolverine World Wide Inc., 43 F.3d 644, 647, 33 USPQ2d 1038, 1040
(Fed. Cir. 1994). The dictionary provides a number of different3
definitions of the word “paddle,” of which the definition most
consistent with the specification would appear to be “an
implement suggestive in shape of a paddle,” the shape of a paddle
3 Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1971).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007