Appeal No. 2001-0109
Application 08/871,898
“[T]he name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150
F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523 (Fed. Cir. 1998). When
interpreting a claim, words of the claim are generally given
their ordinary and customary meaning, unless it appears from
the specification or the file history that they were used
differently by the inventor. See Carroll Touch, Inc. v.
Electro Mechanical Sys., Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1577, 27 USPQ2d
1836, 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Although an inventor is indeed
free to define the specific terms used to describe his or her
invention, this must be done with reasonable clarity,
deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Our reviewing
court states in In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320,
1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) that “claims must be interpreted as
broadly as their terms reasonably allow.”
Claim 1 recites “a lip lies stretched over the outer
surface of the plug”. Appellant’s specification teaches that
the lip of the mouth of plastic film is stretched substantially
so that no wrinkles remain. Appellant’s specification
discloses that the stretching is important because the
slightest wrinkle in the film will result in leakage over time.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007