Appeal No. 95-4927
Serial No. 08/216,772
Appellants next argue that even if the prior art
teachings are combined, the resultant device would fail to
satisfy claim 1 because the bends in the two outer leads (the
claimed "remaining leads") would be contained within the
insulating body rather than being external to it, which
appellants contend is a requirement of the claim. In support
of this claim construction, appellants cite the claim’s
recitation of the leads as "projecting from one side of said
insulating body" and the definition of "project" in Webster’s
New Collegiate Dictionary 940 as meaning to jut out or
protrude (Brief at 5-6). Inasmuch as appellants’
specification fails to set forth a definition of the term
"lead," it is appropriate for appellants to rely on a
dictionary definition to aid in interpreting that term. See
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed.
Cir. 1997):
the PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims
the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their
ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may
be afforded by the written description contained in the
applicant's specification.
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007