Appeal No. 2003-1262
Application No. 09/620,679
between power lines Vss (usually at 0 volt) and VTT (usually
higher than VSS) (id.) to conclude that the first potential must
be VTT whereas the second potential is VSS or the Ground (answer,
page 8).
Before addressing the Examiner’s rejection based on prior
art, it is essential that we understand the claimed subject
matter and determine its scope. Accordingly, as required by our
reviewing court, we will initially direct our attention to
Appellants’ claim 7 in order to determine its scope. “[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). While, the
limitation of “a second 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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007