Appeal No. 2000-0325
Application No. 08/914,365
said connector body providing no more col. 2, ll. 4-20 describes optional closure
than three points of contact with said means 15 and closure means 15'; when
opposing dies of the crimping tool prior closure means 15' is folded over recess
to crimping. 17 prior to crimping, and closure means
15 is absent, or not folded over, there
are no more than three points of contact
with the opposing dies of the crimping
tool prior to crimping -- the top of wall
11, the top of wall 12, and closure
means 15'
We note that appellants appear to rely, in the Brief and Reply Brief, on selectively
narrow definitions of common, ordinary terms appearing in the instant claims. However,
claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution, and the
scope of a claim cannot be narrowed by reading disclosed limitations into the claim. See
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393,
1404, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
We do not find any special definitions set forth in the disclosure to narrow the terms
used in the claims. Cf. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed.
Cir. 1994) (repeating the principle that where an inventor chooses to be his own
lexicographer and gives terms uncommon meanings, he must set out the uncommon
definition in the patent disclosure). See also Beachcombers Int’l, Inc. v. WildeWood
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007