Appeal No. 1999-0681
Application No. 08/697,478
appellant. Id. The same is true in the case at bar. Appellant’s specification does not
make it clear that the expression “conical shaped wall” may include a cylindrical shape or
other non-conical shapes.
Accordingly, the expression “conical shaped wall” must be given its ordinary and
accustomed meaning. See Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Machine Company, 32 F. 3d 542, 547,
31 USPQ2d 1666, 1670 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See also Cortland Line Co. v. Orvis Co., 203
F.3d 1351, 1356, 53 USPQ2d 1734, 1737 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Claim terms receive their
ordinary and customary meaning unless the patentee assigns a special meaning.”). The
ordinary and accustomed dictionary meaning of “conical” in the expression “conical
shaped wall” excludes cylindrical and other non-conical shapes. Therefore, the original
specification as filed lacks descriptive support for the claim limitations discussed in our
§ 112, first paragraph, rejection of the appealed claims as set forth in our decision dated
January 31, 2001.
In light of the foregoing, appellant’s request for rehearing is granted to the extent
of reconsidering our decision, but is denied with respect to making any change thereto.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007