Appeal No. 2004-1597
Application No. 09/383,889
Breternitz. In other words, we must begin with a determination
of the scope of the claim which must then be compared with the
teachings of Breternitz in order to determine whether the claims
are patentable over the prior art. Claim interpretation must
begin with the language of the claim itself. See Smithkline
Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Laboratories Corp., 859 F.2d 878,
882, 8 USPQ2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1988). For proper claim
interpretation, the starting point must be the words of the claim
which 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). Furthermore, the 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), quoting CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
288 F.3d 1359, 1366, 62 USPQ2d 1658, 1662 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Additionally, a court will give a claim term the full range of
its ordinary meaning as understood by persons skilled in the
relevant art, unless compelled otherwise. Texas Digital Systems,
Inc., 308 F.3d at 1202, 64 USPQ2d at 1818. See also Rexnord
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007