Appeal No. 2000-2188 Page 10
Application No. 09/063,050
citing Rodime PLC v. Seagate tech., Inc., 174 F.3d 1294, 1302, 50
USPQ2d 1429, 1435 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
After reviewing the specification, we find that the claimed
first means corresponds to pump controller 20 (identical elements
in Figures 1 and 4). The claimed voltage generator includes a
pump controller that receives an externally applied clock signal
and an externally applied control signal (specification, page 6,
lines 13-17). However, the specification refers to the clock
signal merely as “externally applied clock signal” without
specifying the source of the signal or what element the signal is
external to (specification, pages 6 & 7). At the best, a
“synchronous semiconductor” is mentioned in the specification
without identifying its relation with respect to the voltage
generator (specification, pages 8 & 9). Moreover, based on
Appellants’ own disclosure and lack of any further description
for the term “externally,” we see no reason to interpret the term
“externally applied” in any way other than its common meaning,
i.e., applied from outside of the pump controller. See Cortland
Line Co. v. Orvis Co., 203 F.3d 1351, 1356, 53 USPQ2d 1734, 1737
(Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[c]laim terms receive their ordinary and
customary meaning unless the patentee assigns a special
meaning.”) (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007