Appeal No. 2004-1541
Application No. 10/003,785
231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik
GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458,
221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine 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. 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 at 577, 65 USPQ2d at 1158,
citing Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Mach. Co., 32 F.3d 542, 547,
31 USPQ2d 1666, 1670 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
We note that Appellant's claim 1 recites:
at least one fastener structure extending through the
wall and into said anchor plate means at any location
spaced from said insert means along said predetermined
length of said anchor plate means. (Emphasis added).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007