Appeal No. 2000-1991
Application No. 08/587,417
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants and the
examiner, we make reference to the brief (Paper No. 33) and the
examiner’s answer (Paper No. 34) for the respective details
thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the examiner
and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise, reviewed the
appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief.
We reverse.
Interpretation of Claims
As pointed out by the Federal Circuit, we must first
establish the scope of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is the
claim” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523,
1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Moreover, when interpreting a 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 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Although an
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007