Appeal No. 2001-2241
Application No. 08/928,555
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
As pointed out by the Federal Circuit, we must first establish the scope of the
claim. "[T]he name of the game is the claim" In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369,
47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Moreover, when interpreting a claim, words
of the claim are generally given their ordinary and accustomed meaning unless it
appears from the specification or the file history that they were used differently by the
inventor. 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).
At the outset, we note that appellants elect claims 1-5 stand or fall together as a
group, claims 6-9 as a second grouping, claims 10-14 as a third grouping, claims 15-19
and 20-26 as a fourth grouping, claims 27-33 as a fifth grouping and claims 34-38 as a
sixth grouping. (See brief at pages 4-5.)
35 U.S.C. § 102
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007