Appeal No. 2004-1274
Application 09/951,616
Before we consider whether there are reasons for combining
the teachings of Castle and Koenig, we first must consider the
scope of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is the claim.”
In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529
(Fed. Cir. 1998). “In examining a patent claim, the PTO must
apply the broadest reasonable meaning to the claim language,
taking into account any definitions presented in the
specification.” In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577, 65 USPQ2d 1156,
1158 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 2002). Citing In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d
1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Words in a claim
are to be given their ordinary and accustomed meanings unless the
inventor chooses to be his own lexicographer in the
specification. In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577, 65 USPQ2d 1156,
1158 (Fed. Cir. 2002), citing Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Mach. Co., 32
F.3d 542, 547, 31 USPQ2d 1666, 1670 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
We note that the recitation “wherein the portion of the
splice plate includes a formed groove having the appearance of a
mortar reveal” as recited in claim 1 is not limited to a finished
wall after installing of the coping assembly. We note the
language is only directed to the splice plate itself. Thus, only
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007