Appeal No. 95-4371
Application No. 08/064,440
positions ends of a toothed belt so that a tooth pitch
spanning across connected belt sections has a tooth pitch
[sic, has a value?] in a whole multiple of the pitch of the
belt teeth.”
The only other feature argued as a distinction over
Feighofen relates to the recitation of a “unit” in claim 1. At
oral hearing, appellant’s counsel argued that a unit is an
integral or one piece structure and thus differs from
Feighofen’s multi piece structure. Although this argument was
not made in either of appellant’s briefs with regard to claim
1, we will nevertheless consider it along with the other
arguments outlined supra.
Considering first the issue pertaining to teeth on the
belt, it is well established patent law that during patent
examination, claim language is given its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with appellant’s specification. See
In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed.
Cir. 1989). It is also well established patent law that words
in a claim are to be given their ordinary and accustomed
meaning unless it appears that the inventor used them
differently in his specification. Lantech, Inc. v. Keip
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007