Appeal No. 94-0166
Application No. 07/815,316
As a matter of law, we initially interpret this disputed
limitation to determine its scope and meaning. We give the claim
language its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the description of the invention in the specification. See In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
When, for example, an intent is expressed in the specification to
utilize a term or expression in a more limited sense, we will
give that term or expression in a claim such limited meaning.
Cf. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582,
39 USPQ2d 1573, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). This “rule
of thumb” for claim interpretation allows appellants to be their
own lexicographers. See ZMI Corp. v. Cardiac Resuscitator Corp.,
844 F.2d 1576, 1580, 6 USPQ2d 1557, 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Here, appellants have defined “a landing pad” in the
specification. According to page 2, lines 10-11, of the
specification, “[a] metal is deposited and patterned to define
the contact which is termed a landing pad.” Appellants then go
onto explain that (specification, page 3, lines 18-19):
The metal may be blanket deposited and then patterned
to form the landing pad. The resulting structure is
depicted in FIG. 3.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007