Appeal No. 2004-0479
Application No. 09/780,864
teach "the hub and catheter are formed as a single piece" as
recited in Appellants' claim 18. Appellants further argue
that the Examiner's interpretation of a drawing does not
prevail over the language of the specification.
Our reviewing court states in In re Zletz, 983 F.2d 319,
321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) that "claims must
be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow."
Our reviewing court further 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 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).
Upon our review of Appellants' specification, we fail to
find any definition of the term "single piece" that is
different from the ordinary meaning. Furthermore, we note
that the issue before us is what is ordinary meaning of the
term "single" since it is not disputed that the hub or
catheter can be considered as a piece of the apparatus. The
question is whether the hub and catheter is a single piece.
77
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007