Appeal No. 2004-1553
Application No. 09/915,631
In general, words in a claim will be given their ordinary
and accustomed meaning, unless it appears that the inventor used
them differently, Envirotech Corp. v. Al George, Inc. 730 F.2d
753, 759, 221 USPQ 473, 477 (Fed. Cir. 1984), and a claim will be
given its broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the
specification. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ 541,
550 (CCPA 1969). Considering first the examiner’s treatment of
independent claims 1 and 10, the dictionary1 contains several
definitions of the verb “connect.” Consistent with appellants’
specification2, and as normally applied in the structural sense,
we consider that the claim terminology calling for a plate
“connected to” a component or frame to connote a plate that is
“joined or fastened together” with a component or frame, which is
the past tense equivalent of a dictionary definition of the verb
“connect.” While we acknowledge that the verb “connect” may also
mean “to associate or relate,” we do not consider this broader
definition to be the appropriate broadest reasonable
1Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary, copyright
© 1984 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
2See page 3, lines 8-12, of the specification, where the
mount assembly is described as being attached to the engine or
transmission by a first fastener 14 and attached to the vehicle
frame by a second fastener 15 such that the mount is interposed
between the engine or transmission and the frame.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007