Appeal No. 97-2226 Page 8
Application No. 08/203,789
It is axiomatic that, in proceedings before the PTO, claims
in an application are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and that 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 Sneed,
710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The appellants' specification (page 8, lines 13-14) states
that "[t]he bottom pieces may be attached together, or preferably
may be detached from one another."
The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition,
(1982) defines "separate" as "set apart from others; detached
. . . existing as an entity; independent."
It is our determination that the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification of the claimed
phrase two "separate" bottom pieces for covering lower
extremities of the patient is that the two bottom pieces exist as
independent entities. When claims 1 and 22 are given this
interpretation, it is clear to us that the prior art as applied
by the examiner would not have suggested two "separate" bottom
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007