Appeal No. 2002-0027
Application No. 08/963,812
understood with benefit of this disclosure that the shape of a
membrane 16 may vary substantially” (emphasis added).
Having failed to find a definition in appellant’s
specification of exactly what constitutes an “arcuate membrane”
and likewise failed to find a definition which precludes a curved
or dome-shaped membrane like that in Wood, and given the broad,
permissive language noted-above on pages 5, 16 and 17 of
appellant’s specification, we have given the claim language its
plain, ordinary and accustomed meaning as such would have been
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example,
Johnson Worldwide Associates Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985,
989, 50 USPQ2d 1607, 1610 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Bell Atlantic Network
Services Inc. v. Covad Communications Group Inc., 262 F.3d 1258,
1267, 59 USPQ2d 1865, 1870 (Fed. Cir. 2001); and Rexnord Corp. v.
Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1341-1342, 60 USPQ2d 1851, 1854
(Fed. Cir. 2001).
Having found that the “arcuate membrane” set forth in claim
18 on appeal is broadly readable as a bowed or curved membrane,
we must agree with the examiner that the “arcuate membrane” in
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007