Appeal No. 2005-1483 4
Application No. 90/005,947
The Federal Circuit recently restated: “It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that
‘the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to
exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312, 75 USPQ 2d 1321, 1325, (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
381 F.3d 1111, 1115, 72 USPQ 2d 1001, 1004, (Fed. Cir. 2004)). “The inquiry into how a
person of ordinary skill in the art understands a claim term provides an objective baseline
from which to begin claim interpretation. ”Id.“ Importantly, the person of ordinary skill in
the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in
which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the
specification.” Id.
The argued limitation is from independent claim 4 and states:
an isolation valve connected to the inner bore at said gravel packing
assembly adjacent said production screen, said isolation valve controllable
between an open position permitting fluid flow through said screen and a
closed position inhibiting fluid flow through said screen (emphasis
supplied)....
The crux of the dispute is that the examiner maintains that the doubly occurring phrase
“flow through said screen” encompasses both radial flow through the reticulated portion of
the screen when the screen is performing its separating function and axial flow through the
screen in the longitudinal direction of the well workover and production string. The
examiner believes this is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language.
Appellants maintain that the limitation must be construed to cover only radial flow through
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007