Appeal No. 2005-0296
Application No. 09/802,097
tactile access to the toys.
During patent examination claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the underlying
specification without reading limitations from the specification
into the claims. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ
541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969). In this regard, the USPTO applies to
claim verbiage the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in
their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of the
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be
afforded by the written description contained in the
specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The ordinary meaning of claim
terms may be established by dictionary definitions. CCS fitness
Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366, 62 USPQ2d 1658,
1662 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language,
Second College Edition (The World Publishing Co. 1972) defines
the term “access” as meaning “the act of coming toward or near
to; approach.” Although broad, this definition is entirely
consistent with the appellant’s specification. Understood in
this light, the “permitting access” limitations in claims 1 and 9
find full response in the proposed modification of Matthews in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007