Appeal No. 2006-0325 Παγε 10
Application No. 10/152,485
While it is true that the claims in a patent application are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during prosecution
of a patent application (see, for example, In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d
1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)), it is also well settled that terms in a claim should be
construed as those skilled in the art would construe them (see Specialty Composites v.
Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 986, 6 USPQ2d 1601, 1604 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re
Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016, 194 USPQ 187, 194 (CCPA 1977). Further, as pointed
out by our reviewing court in Phillipps v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 75 USPQ2d
1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the claims, of course, do not stand alone but, rather, are
part of a fully integrated written instrument consisting principally of a specification that
concludes with the claims. For that reason, claims must be read in view of the
specification, of which they are a part. "The specification is always highly relevant to the
claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the
meaning of a disputed term." Id.
In describing the damper or "dampening element" of appellant's stabilization
device, the present specification refers to it as "made of a bio-compatible, elastic
material" (page 10) and incorporates by reference, for the details thereof, the Navas
patent. It is apparent from the background of the invention discussion in column 1 of
the Navas patent that the stabilization device with dampers disclosed therein is intended
to, at least to some extent, restore the healthy mechanics of coupled and dampened
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007