Appeal 2007-0439
Application 10/630260
American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). The specification need not describe the claimed subject matter in
exactly the same terms as used in the claims, but it must contain an
equivalent description of the claimed subject matter. (Id.)
Patent claim is not invalid for indefiniteness unless it is insolubly
ambiguous; therefore, if meaning of claim is discernible, claim is
sufficiently clear to avoid invalidity on indefiniteness grounds, even if
interpreting claim is difficult, and construction is one over which reasonable
persons could disagree. Bancorp Services LLC v. Hartford Life Insurance
Co., 359 F3d 1367, 69 USPQ2d 1996, 1999 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found
only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim. See In re
King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730
F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Our reviewing court states in In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) that “claims must be interpreted as
broadly as their terms reasonably allow.” Our reviewing court further states,
“[t]he terms used in the claims bear a ‘heavy presumption’ that they mean
what they say and have the ordinary meaning that would be attributed to
those words by persons skilled in the relevant art.” Texas Digital Sys. Inc v.
Telegenix Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1817 (Fed. Cir.
2002).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013