Appeal No. 2004-1692
Application No. 09/871,863
their very name must be used for “modifying the fluid flow path of
a fluid” as it exits the inlet channel, as required by claim 1 on
appeal (Heilmann, page 4, claims 4 and 5). The term “extend” is
not specifically defined in appellants’ specification and thus
must be given its broadest reasonable ordinary meaning, i.e., “to
stretch or spread out to full length.”3 The language disputed
in claim 12 on appeal requires the a member be “located in
juxtaposition and integral to” the blood inlet and cause blood to
flow to a perimeter region of a first end of the fiber bundle.
Again, we note that the specification fails to define or provide
guidelines as to the meaning of “located in juxtaposition and
integral to.” We must give these terms their broadest reasonable
ordinary meaning, i.e., juxtaposition meaning “to place side by
side” and integral meaning “a complete unit.”4 Accordingly, giving
these terms their broadest reasonable meaning in ordinary usage, we
determine that the member recited in claim 12 on appeal must be
located side by side and part of the blood inlet unit.
Given our claim construction as detailed above, we agree with
the examiner that every element recited in independent claims 1, 12
3See Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary, p.
456, The Riverside Publishing Co., 1984.
4Id. at pages 660 and 634, respectively.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007