Appeal No. 2002-1173
Application No. 09/510,640
the dip in the supply voltage” should be given its ordinary
meaning, In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir.
1985), it should also be interpreted as broadly as possible. Our
reviewing court further reasons that the terms used in the claims
bear a “heavy presumption” that they mean what they say and have
the ordinary meaning that would be attributed to those words by
persons skilled in the relevant art. Texas Digital Systems Inc.
v. Telegenix Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1817
(Fed. Cir. 2002), quoting CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
288 F.3d 1359, 1366, 62 USPQ2d 1658, 1662 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Additionally, a court will give a claim term the full range of
its ordinary meaning as understood by persons skilled in the
relevant art, unless compelled otherwise. Texas Digital Systems,
Inc., 308 F.3d at 1202, 64 USPQ2d at 1818. See also Rexnord
Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1342, 60 USPQ2d 1851, 1854
(Fed. Cir. 2001).
Appellants’ claims 1 and 9 require “repeating operations ...
which are supplied by the supply voltage and have been (possibly)
influenced by the dip in the supply voltage ...” (Emphasis
added). We note that the step of repeating operations supplied
by the supply voltage and affected by the dip clearly requires
performing the affected operations once again, starting from the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007