Appeal No. 2001-1402
Application 09/287,838
configured to stand erect on a floor surface; and that Meier’s
“means for releasably securing” is not the same as, or
equivalent to, the corresponding structure disclosed by
appellant (brief, pages 4 and 5).1
It is well settled that “[t]o anticipate a claim, a prior
art reference must disclose every limitation of the claimed
invention, either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber,
128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Also, words in a claim are to be given their ordinary and
accustomed meaning, unless clearly defined differently by the
inventor, In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 31 USPQ2d 1671,
1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994), and limitations are not to be read into
the claims from the specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In the
present case, appellant does not define “figurine” in the
specification, so it will be given its ordinary and accustomed
meaning which, according to the dictionary definition accepted
by appellant (reply brief, page 2) is “a small molded or
sculpted figure; a statuette.” Appellant argues that Meier’s
1 Citing In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845
(Fed. Cir. 1994).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007