Appeal No. 2007-0392
Application No. 10/427,733
1996) (emphasis Appellant’s).) Appellant argues that in formal
correspondence with the Examiner, the term “monolithically formed” has
been consistently defined to mean “formed or composed of material without
joints or seams.” (Id.)
We agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim language.
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation
that is consistent with the specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appellant has pointed to
nothing in the specification that is inconsistent with the Examiner’s
interpretation of the claims.
Instead, Appellant argues that he has defined the term “monolithically
formed” in correspondence during prosecution. We agree with the Examiner
that Appellant has not adequately shown an intent to give the term
“monolithically formed” a specific meaning. If an applicant wants to be his
own lexicographer and give a term a meaning other than the ordinary one,
the specification must clearly redefine the term so as to put those skilled in
the art on notice that the patent intends to redefine the term. See Process
Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d
1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Optical Disc Corp. v. Del Mar
Avionics, 208 F.3d 1324, 1334, 54 USPQ2d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
(“Without evidence in the patent specification of an express intent to impart
a novel meaning to a claim term, the term takes on its ordinary meaning.”).
Here, the specification uses the term “monolithically formed” only in
describing Figure 7. That figure is said to show an embodiment having
an inner wall 228 spaced apart from an outer wall 224. A
membrane 230 may extend between the inner wall 228 and the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013