Appeal No. 2002-0388 Page 3
Application No. 08/937,859
OPINION
We reverse for the following reasons.
The key issue in this appeal is one of claim interpretation; namely, the interpretation of
“frame having an opening.” The Examiner has identified the correct legal principle to use to
interpret the claim: Claims are to be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specification during the examination of a patent application since the applicant may then
amend the claims. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969). The
problem lies in the reasonableness of the Examiner’s interpretation and its consistency with what
is described in the specification.
When interpreting a claim, its words are generally given their ordinary and accustomed
meaning, unless it appears from the specification that they were used differently by the inventor.
In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Appellants’ use of
the words “frame” and “opening” are consistent with the ordinary meaning of these words as
connoting an open case or structure made for admitting, enclosing, or supporting something (e.g.,
a window frame).1 In such a structure, the opening extends all the way through to create a hole
or aperture.
The Examiner relies upon Rud as describing a “frame having an opening” and a
membrane over the frame and opening. According to the Examiner, Figure 3A of Rud depicts a
1See Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 489 and 826 (1986). Copy provided with the decision.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007