Appeal No. 2003-0249
Application 08/863,848
Appellant argues that the claimed invention requires a wire
centrally positioned on the integrated surface. Appellant argues
that this limitation is not disclosed or suggested by Nakamura.
See page 4 of Appellant’s brief.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine 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).
We note that Appellant’s only independent claim 1 recites
“said wires being centrally positioned on said integrated circuit
to abut said first surface of the circuit board.” We further
note that on page 5 of the Appellant’s specification, Appellant
states that the hole through the printed circuit board 122 may be
positioned at the central longitudinal axis of the printed
circuit board. Appellant also shows and discloses that wires 118
are placed through hole 120. See figures 1 and 2 as well as page
5 of Appellant’s specification. We fail to find that the
Appellant has provided a special definition for the claimed term
“centrally”.
As our reviewing court states, “[T]he 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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007