Appeal No. 1999-1835
Application No. 08/654,976
specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997)("[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage
of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the
words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one
of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be
afforded by the written description contained in the applicant's
specification."); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d
1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)("During patent examination the
pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms
reasonably allow."). Thus, absent an express definition for a
disputed term, it is appropriate to give the term its broadest
reasonable meaning in its ordinary usage. Morris, 127 F.3d at
1056, 44 USPQ2d at 1029.
Applying these principles, we note that appealed claim 8
recites the term "area." The specification, however, does not
include an express definition for the term "area." Accordingly,
we give this term its broadest reasonable meaning in its
ordinary usage. That is, we construe the term "area" to mean,
in its present context, any part of the tire tread without any
limitation with respect to the size of the area or the precise
location of the area. Our interpretation is consistent with the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007