Appeal No. 96-2267
Application 08/154,344
It is thus apparent that the examiner has taken the position that
the lips or cusps 4 and 5 of Gabbay correspond to the above
quoted “means for normally closing . . .” limitation of claim 1.
We do not agree with this position.
While it is well settled that terms in a claim are to be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation in proceedings
before the PTO, this interpretation must be consistent with the
specification and the claim language should be read in light of
the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
skill in the art. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566,
1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). As disclosed in the paragraph
bridging pages 5 and 6 of appellant’s specification, means must
be provided which, in normal use, close the passage in the
extension tube so that the menstrual cup can perform its purpose
of retaining menstrual flow. That is, the closing means “must be
reliable and leak proof” (specification, page 6, line 1; emphasis
added). In the embodiment of Figure 9, for example, the normally
closed slit will enable fluid to drain when squeezed, and when
released “will return to its normal closed condition”
(specification, page 8). When read in light of this disclosure,
the “means for normally closing . . .” set forth in the last 4
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007