Appeal No. 2005-0943
Application No. 09/947,943
inflatable balloon. During patent examination, 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
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). It is also well settled that 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). As might be
expected, the word “single” can have a number of different
meanings depending on the manner in which it is used. In the
context of the appellant’s specification and claims, the word
“single” clearly characterizes the number of balloons embodied by
the appellant’s catheter. Hence, customary definitions of
“single” such as “consisting of one as opposed to or in contrast
with many” or “consisting of only one in number”2 are reasonable
in construing the scope of claim 1, while the more obscure
2 Both of these definitions are from Webster’s New Collegiate
Dictionary (G. & C. Merriam Co. 1977).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007