Appeal No. 2004-1240
Application No. 09/742,691
the answer), and states that this image shows a jagged
edge that is integrated, and the jagged edge is
inherently a cutting blade in that it cuts foil.
Appellant argues that such a jagged edge is not an
“integrated cutting blade”. Brief, page 5 and Eric
Polesuk’s Second Declaration. Hence, the meaning of
this phrase “an integrated cutting blade” is disputed.
We note that the meaning and scope of a claim is
ascertained in light of the specification. That is,
in determining the patentability of claims, the PTO
gives claim language its “broadest reasonable
interpretation” consistent with the specification and
claims. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citations omitted).
There is a heavy presumption that a claim term carries
its ordinary and customary meaning. Amgen, Inc. v.
Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1325, 65
USPQ2d 1385, 1394 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
In the instant case, appellant’s specification
does not explicitly describe how the integrated
cutting blade is attached to dispenser 5 depicted in
Figure 1. Figure 1 does illustrate dispenser 5 having
blade 50 thereon. Hence, a blade is connected to
dispenser 5 in some way.
We turn to the dictionary as a useful tool for
determining the ordinary and customary meaning of the
word “integrated”. The definition of the word
“integrate” is “to unite with something else”. See
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007