Appeal No. 1999-2065
Application 08/651,502
“given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the
specification.” In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ
541, 550 (CCPA 1969). The
PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed
claims the broadest reasonable meaning of
the words in their ordinary usage as they
would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art, taking into account
whatever enlighten- ment by way of
definitions or otherwise that
may be afforded by the written description
contained in applicant's specification.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44
USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must also
be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in
the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49
USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Moreover, Fischer lacks additional structural
elements recited in claim 45 on appeal. Claim 45 recites “a
second handle having an anvil at a distal end” (line 4) and “a
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007