Appeal 2007-0387
Application 09/756,688
1 Claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.”
2 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir.
3 2005) (en banc) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576,
4 1582, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1576-77 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). And “the ordinary and
5 customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a
6 person of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 1313, 75 USPQ2d at 1326. The PTO
7 applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of
8 the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary
9 skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions
10 or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the
11 Applicant's Specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54, 44 USPQ2d
12 1023, 1027(Fed. Cir. 1997). This is the standard for claim interpretation in both
13 original examination and re-examination. See In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569,
14 1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
15 The Federal Circuit recently restated: “It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent
16 law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is
17 entitled the right to exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13
18 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water
19 Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115, 72 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir.
20 2004)). “The inquiry into how a person of ordinary skill in the art understands a
21 claim term provides an objective baseline from which to begin claim
22 interpretation.” Id. “Importantly, the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed
23 to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the
24 disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the
25 specification.” Id.
26
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013