Appeal No. 2006-1193 10
Application No. 09/961,036
“During patent examination, the pending claims must be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." In re
Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must also be consistent with
the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright,
165 F.3d 1353, 1358, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The words
of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless applicant has provided
a clear definition in the specification. “When an applicant states the meaning
that claim terms are intended to have, the claims should be examined with
that meaning, in order to achieve a complete exploration of the applicant’s
invention and its relation to the prior art.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321,
13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
With respect to the scope of the claimed “refractory metal,” we note
that various extrinsic sources vary widely in their definitions, e.g., ranging
broadly from a “material resistant to high temperatures” [Webster’s II, New
Riverside Dictionary, Riverside Publishing Co., 1984] to specific groups of
metals with high melting points. However, we note that the Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit has determined that extrinsic evidence is
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007