Appeal No. 1998-2981 Application No. 08/763,390 claim, words of the claim are generally given their ordinary and accustomed meaning unless it appears from the specification or the file history that they were used differently by the inventor. Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Sys., Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1577, 27 USPQ2d 1836, 1840. Although an inventor is indeed free to define the specific terms used to describe his or her invention, this must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness (see In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1446, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)), which is established when the teachings of the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art (see In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007