Appeal No. 2003-0481
Application No. 09/222,388
Before we consider the teachings of the prior art we must first determine the
scope of the claim. Claims will be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, limitations appearing in the specification will not be
read into the claims. In re Etter 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In
analyzing the scope of the claim, office personnel must rely on the appellant’s
disclosure to properly determine the meaning of the terms used in the claims.
Markman v. Westview Instruments, 52 F3d 967, 980, 34 USPQ2d 1321 (1996).
“[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim ‘is not to be confused with adding an
extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is improper.’” (emphasis
original) In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation 301 F.3d 1343, 1348, 64 USPQ2d 1202,
1205, (Fed. Cir 2002) (citing Intervet America Inc v. Kee-Vet Laboratories Inc. 12
USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). “[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 words by persons skilled in the relevant art.” Tex Digital Sys,
Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
“Moreover, the intrinsic record also must be examined in every case to determine
whether the presumption of ordinary and customary meaning is rebutted.” (citation
omitted). “Indeed, the intrinsic record may show that the specification uses the words in
a manner clearly inconsistent with the ordinary meaning reflected, for example, in a
dictionary definition. In such a case, the inconsistent dictionary definition must be
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007