Appeal No. 1999-2618
Application 08/647,223
Although the PTO must give claims their broadest
reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be
consistent with the one that those skilled in the art
would reach. See 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 . . . ."); In re Bond,
910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir.
1990) ("It is axiomatic that, in proceedings before the
PTO, claims in an application are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, . . . and that claim language should be
read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.")
(emphasis added); see also M.P.E.P. § 2111.01 (" [T]he
words of a claim . . . must be read as they would be
interpreted by those of ordinary skill in the art.").
"[W]here there are several common meanings for a claim term,
the patent disclosure serves to point away from the improper
meanings and toward the proper meaning." Renishaw PLC v.
Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250,
48 USPQ2d 1117, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
The claims are directed to electrical circuits and,
therefore, the words of the claims must be given the
meanings as they would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the electrical engineering art. Appellant supplies
a declaration by Mr. Kerwin to address the meaning to one of
ordinary skill in the electrical engineering art.
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007