Appeal No. 2004-0388
Application No. 09/749,620
defibrillator (brief, pages 8-9; reply brief, pages 6-7). During
patent prosecution, claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, as
the claim language would have been read by one of ordinary skill
in the art in view of the specification and prior art. See In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
The appellant’s specification states that “[a]nother specific
embodiment transmits a status inquiry to the wireless
communication port, thus initiating a status report” (page 14,
lines 18-20), and that “[t]he triggering and/or the indication
could be produced remote to the defibrillator” (page 17,
lines 15-16). Hence, the broadest reasonable interpretation, in
view of the appellant’s specification, of “connected to” in the
appellant’s claim 1 includes connection for wireless
communication. Tacker, therefore, anticipates the defibrillator
system claimed in the appellant’s claims 1 and 7.
Claim 10: Tacker’s switch 119 is a user-activated trigger
for initiating a query of the functional status of the
defibrillator (col. 6, lines 60-61).2
2 It appears that the last word in claim 10 should be
“defibrillator” instead of “indicator”.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007