Appeal No. 2006-2654
Application No. 10/100,276
DISCUSSION
Claim interpretation is at the heart of patent examination because the
language of the claim defines its scope. Only when claim scope has been
determined by interpreting the words in a claim, can the claim be properly
compared to the prior art. In this case, we find no clear explanation for the
claim interpretation apparently adopted by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims.
During patent examination, the PTO is permitted to adopt “the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they
would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account
whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be
afforded by the written description contained in the applicant's
specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027
(Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1367
(Fed. Cir. 2004). With this as a guiding principle, we start with the words of
the claim.
Claim 1 is directed to an “apparatus” for on-chip monitoring. The
apparatus has 1) a “surface formed with a plurality of channels for fluid
flow” and 2) a “means for supplying a cell bearing fluid” to a first channel.”
The plain language of the claim requires the channels to be “formed” from
the apparatus “surface.” In other words, the “channels” are integral to the
apparatus and represent a structural limitation of it.
The term “channel” is not expressly defined in the specification. For
its ordinary usage, we refer to a dictionary which defines it as “passage for
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013