Appeal No. 2002-1032
Application No. 08/829,278
from the hub to each antenna station to be an “antenna segment,” as claimed because
in order for a portion of an antenna to be termed an “antenna segment,” 1. Any
components within the “antenna segment” must be passive -not active; 2. Any
components between antenna segments must be passive -not active; and 3. A signal
received on one segment is present on all other segments. Since the “antenna
segments” identified in Zarem do not appear to meet these definitions, appellants urge
that our decision is in error.
We disagree.
First, the proffered declaration evidence has not been considered by us since it
has not been timely filed and was not before the examiner. Moreover, the definition of
“antenna segment” attempted to be introduced by appellants at this late date, is not
identified as being part of the original disclosure or having any special definition therein.
Accordingly, the term, “antenna segment,” as broadly claimed, is given a broad, yet
reasonable, interpretation. When interpreting a claim, words of the claim are generally
given their ordinary and accustomed meaning, unless it appears from the specification
or the file history that they were used differently by the inventor. Carroll Touch, Inc. V.
Electro Mechanical Sys., Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1577, 27 USPQ2d 1836, 1840 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007