Appeal No. 2004-1635
Application No. 10/083,915 Page 5
of materials (shapable wire) that would not be capable of
performing as the claimed climbing step. Consequently, appellant
maintains that the Wright device must be structurally different
from the here claimed subject matter.
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). Even after a patent issues, a claim term takes on its
ordinary and accustomed meaning unless the patentee demonstrates
an intent to deviate from that meaning by redefining the term in
the intrinsic record using words of “manifest exclusion or
restriction.” Teleflex Inc. v. Ficosa North America Corp., 299
F.3d 1313, 1325, 63 USPQ2d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Having reviewed the specification and claims, we determine
that appellant furnished no special definition for the recited
term “step for climbing” or “step” that would limit those terms
to requiring that the claimed device must be constructed in a
special way to support a particular size person as a climber in a
position well above ground level. In this regard, we note that
appellant has not furnished a special definition for the term
step in their specification that would suggest a structure that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007