Appeal No. 1996-1616
Application No. 08/158,673
defined the phrase in the specification. It is well
established
that "claims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations
therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in
giving them their 'broadest reasonable interpretation.'" In
re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 U.S.P.Q. 289 (Fed.Cir. 1983).
Accordingly, "[w]ords which were defined in the specification
must be given the same meaning when used in a claim." McGill,
Inc. v. John Zink Co., 736 F.2d 666, 674, 221 U.S.P.Q. 944,
949 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 105 S.Ct. 514 (1984).
Conversely, where words or phrases are not clearly defined in
the specification, as in the present application, they must be
given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Giving the
phrase "vertical field effect transistor" its broadest
reasonable interpretation, we find that Blanchard's field
effect transistor which is described as being vertical
satisfies the phrase. As appellant has presented no further
arguments with respect to claim 1, we will sustain the
rejection of claim 1. Further since claims 2 through 4, 7,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007