Appeal 97-1804
Application 08/329,042
(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 a 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).
Claims undergoing examination are given their broadest
reasonable construction consistent with the specification.
Burlington Industries v. Quigg, 822 F.2d 1581, 1583, 3 USPQ2d
1436, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393,
1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).
- 16 -
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007