Appeal No. 2005-2755 6
Application No. 09/612,403
specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54, 44
USPQ2d 1023, 1027(Fed. Cir. 1997).
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 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting
Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,
Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (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.
In this instance, the disputed claim term “serviceable
element” is not found in appellant’s specification. The
specification does discuss oil filters which appear to be
the main goal of the invention and does mention servicing
oil filters numerous times. Appellant does not explicitly
define the term serviceable element in the brief but it
appears that the appellant regards servicing the engine as
something different from adding fuel to a tank under the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007