Appeal No. 2006-1824
Application No. 10/131,068
During patent prosecution, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, as the claim language would have been read by one
of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification. See
In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir. 1983).
The appellants argue that their specification requires that
a convective device distributes thermally regulated air around a
person or a specific body area of a person (reply brief, page 3).
The appellants’ specification discloses the following regarding
the meaning of “convective device” as that term is used by the
appellants (¶ 0006):
A convective device may be embodied, for example, in an
inflatable device which inflates with pressurized, thermally
regulated air and has one or more surfaces adapted for
expelling air onto a person. Such devices may lie on,
around, or under the person. A convective device is
generally realized as a blanket, but can be embodied by
other appliances or attachments that are designed to be
operated by or with the application of pressurized,
thermally conditioned air. When used herein, the term
“convective device” is intended to include all blankets,
pads, covers, manifolds, and equivalent structures that
operate as just described.
The disclosure that a convective device “may be … for example” a
device for expelling thermally regulated air onto a person
indicates that the ability to expel air onto a person is not a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013