Ex Parte Crone - Page 11

            Appeal 2006-2109                                                                                 
            Application 10/680,678                                                                           

        1                                 PRINCIPLES OF LAW                                                  
        2       Claim Construction                                                                           
        3       The general rule is that terms in the claim are to be given their ordinary and               
        4   accustomed meaning.  Johnson Worldwide Assocs. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985,                     
        5   989, 50 USPQ2d 1607, 1610 (Fed. Cir. 1999).  In the USPTO, claims are                            
        6   construed giving their broadest reasonable interpretation.                                       
        7          [T]he Board is required to use a different standard for construing                        
        8          claims than that used by district courts. We have held that it is error                   
        9          for the Board to “appl[y] the mode of claim interpretation that is used                   
       10          by courts in litigation, when interpreting the claims of issued patents                   
       11          in connection with determinations of infringement and validity.” In re                    
       12          Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989); accord In re Morris, 127                       
       13          F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It would be inconsistent with the                      
       14          role assigned to the PTO in issuing a patent to require it to interpret                   
       15          claims in the same manner as judges who, post-issuance, operate                           
       16          under the assumption the patent is valid.”). Instead, as we explained                     
       17          above, the PTO is obligated to give claims their broadest reasonable                      
       18          interpretation during examination.                                                        
       19   In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834                     
       20   (Fed. Cir. 2004).                                                                                
       21       Although a patent applicant is entitled to be his own lexicographer of patent                
       22   claim terms, in ex parte prosecution it must be within limits.  In re Corr, 347 F.2d             
       23   578, 146 USPQ 69 (CCPA, 1965).  The applicant must do so by placing such                         
       24   definitions in the Specification with sufficient clarity to provide a person of                  
       25   ordinary skill in the art with clear and precise notice of the meaning that is to be             
       26   construed.                                                                                       
       27          Although an inventor is indeed free to define the specific terms used                     
       28          to describe his or her invention, this must be done with reasonable                       
       29          clarity, deliberateness, and precision. "Where an inventor chooses to                     
       30          be his own lexicographer and to give terms uncommon meanings, he                          
                                                     11                                                      


Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013