Appeal No. 2004-2180
Application No. 10/131,020
element “that can not draw power from the power supply
sufficiently to cause flicker.” (Appeal brief at 4-5.)
We find no merit in the appellant’s argument. It is well
settled that, in proceedings before the PTO, claims in an
application must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation, taking into account any enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise found in the specification. In re
Bigio, No. 03-1358, slip op. at 5 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 24, 2004)
(“[T]he PTO gives a disputed claim term its broadest reasonable
interpretation during patent prosecution.”); In re Morris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[T]he
PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest
reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they
would be understood by one of ordinary skill.”); In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989)(“During patent examination the pending claims must be
interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.”); In re
Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934,936 (Fed. Cir.
1984)(“The PTO broadly interprets claims during examination of a
patent application since the applicant may ‘amend his claim to
obtain protection commensurate with his actual contribution to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007