Appeal No. 2001-2649
Application No. 09/358,926
and Lienard threaded member 2 to obtain Appellant's claimed
structural limitation of "a conductive hollow, internally
threaded female connector member integral with said conductive
end terminal and housing said bullet-shaped wire splaying end" as
recited in Appellant's claim 1. See pages 4 and 5 of the appeal
brief and page 2 of the reply brief.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claims. "[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). Our reviewing court also 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." 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,
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007