Appeal No. 95-4356
Application 08/133,821
As a general rule, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution. In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ 541, 550
(CCPA 1969). It is improper to narrow the scope of the
claim by implicitly reading in disclosed limitations from the
specification which have no express basis in the claims. See
Id. When interpreting a claim, words of the claim are
generally given their ordinary and accustomed meaning, unless
it appears from the specification or the file history that
they were used differently by the inventor. Carroll Touch,
Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Sys., Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1577, 27
USPQ2d 1836, 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Where an inventor chooses
to be his own lexicographer and to give terms uncommon
meanings, he must set out his uncommon definition in some
manner within the patent disclosure so as to give one of
ordinary skill in the art notice of the change. Intellicall,
Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1388, 21 USPQ2d
1383, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We have carefully reviewed the
disclosure in this application, and we can find no specific
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007