Appeal No. 2003-1778 Page 4
Application No. 08/988,292
scope and meaning of each contested limitation. See Gechter v.
Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). During prosecution of a patent application, the
terms in a claim are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. In re
Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir.
1984). Although no limitations in the specification is normally
imputed to the claims being interpreted, see In re Paulsen, 30
F.3d at 1480, 31 USPQ2d at 1674, the specification can still be
used to impart the meaning of words in the claims, see In re
Barr, 444 F.2d 588, 593, 170 USPQ 330, 335 (CCPA 1971). After
all, it is well established that appellants can be their own
lexicographer so long as terms are clearly defined and not given
meanings repugnant or abhorrent to the ordinary meaning. Here,
we observe that the term “body surface,” as employed in the
claims, is defined at page 7, lines 21-23 of the specification as
follows:
The term “body surface” as used herein refers
generally to the skin, mucous membranes and nails of an
animal or human, and to the outer surface of a plant.
Consequently, we shall employ that definition of “body
surface” as furnished by appellants in their specification in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007