Appeal No. 2005-0999
Application No. 09/939,356
not contest the examiner’s objective evidence that the term
“mechanically fixed” is a recognized term in the art for
soldering and adhesive bonding heat sinks to electrical
components. Also, appellants do not point to any particular
definition in their specification for the claim language
“mechanically fixed”. Rather, appellants cite Teleflex
Incorporated vs. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 63 USPQ 2d 1374 (Fed. Cir.
2002) for the proposition that the patents cited by the examiner
“constitute extrinsic evidence which may not properly be
considered in determining the meaning of words in a claim” (page
2 of Reply Brief, first paragraph). According to appellants,
“[t]he words used in a claim are interpreted in light of the
intrinsic evidence of record, including the written description,
the drawings, and the prosecution history” (id.)
The Teleflex case cited by appellants certainly supports the
argument that intrinsic evidence for interpreting claim language
includes the written description and drawings of a specification,
as well as the prosecution history. However, appellants erred in
stating that the court excludes prior art patents in determining
the meaning of claim language. Indeed, the court explains that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007