Appeal No. 2001-1682
Application No. 08/837,668
addition, that the "claim language should be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill
in the art." In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388
(Fed. Cir. 1983)(emphasis added). Our Court of review has also
informed us that the drawings included in the application may aid
in the interpretation of claim limitations, in that the "drawings
alone may provide a 'written description' of an invention as
required by § 112." Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555,
1556, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Thus, in those
instances where a visual representation can flesh out words, as
in the present application, drawings can and should be used like
the written specification to provide evidence relevant to claim
interpretation and used to interpret what the inventor intended
by the claim terms. Applying these precepts to the present
application, we find that, when the claim language "an attachment
block" is read in light of the present application disclosure as
such would be interpreted by the hypothetical person possessing
ordinary skill in the art, such claim language requires an
element as described in the specification, i.e., one including a
base (506) and two parallel side plates (507) which a support pin
(508) therebetween, and wherein the base (506) of the attachment
block is attached to the surface mountable base plate (501).
77
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007