Appeal No. 2005-1483 6
Application No. 90/005,947
encompassing flow is the intention of the language of claim 4. This factor also is evidence
that the examiner’s reading of the claim, while broader, is reasonable.
The appellants have not provided an argument based on the specification of their
patent. Instead, appellants provide a list of patents that have used terminology similar to
flow through the screen to mean radial flow through the filtering apertures. This is not
convincing for several reasons.
First as noted above, the language from the claim is properly construed on the basis
of the disclosure of the entire specification. Without reference to these specifications in
their entirety, specific examples of the same phrases taken out of context from other
patents are of little value. This, of course, applies to the counterexamples cited by the
examiner as well.
Secondly, the court has cautioned that extrinsic evidence is less significant than the
intrinsic record in establishing the meaning of claim terms. [W]hile extrinsic evidence “can
shed useful light on the relevant art,” we have explained that it is “less significant than the
intrinsic record in determining ‘the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” Phillips
v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
Finally, in view of the counterexamples cited by the examiner, it appears that the
extrinsic evidence cited by the appellant in the form of quotations from other patents is
inconclusive, if we were to entitle it to any weight. Considering all the forgoing, it is our
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007