Appeal No. 97-1499
Application 08/242,297
47 USPQ2d 1418, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Paraphrasing Judge
Plager's opinion for the court the following becomes apparent.
To determine the proper meaning of claims, one first considers
the so-called intrinsic evidence, i.e., the claims, the
written description, and, if in evidence, the prosecution
history. Within the intrinsic evidence, however, there is a2
hierarchy of analytical tools. The actual words of the claims
are the controlling focus. The written description is
considered, in particular to determine if the patentee acted
as its own lexicographer, and ascribed a certain meaning to
terms in the claims. If not, the ordinary meaning as
understood by one having ordinary skill in the art controls.
See also Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d
1298, 1309, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1169 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (to
ascertain the meaning of claims, we consider three sources:
the claims, the written description, and the prosecution
history).
We do not find it necessary to rely on the prosecution history given the clear2
description in the specification of the need for an adhesive layer between the substrate
layer and the first stabilizing layer. Nevertheless,
the prosecution history in the form of page 4, first full paragraph, of the NEW,
COMPLETE BRIEF ON APPEAL, reveals that applicant regards his claimed invention to
require the presence of an adhesive layer between the substrate layer and the first
stabilizing layer.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007