Appeal 2007-0694
Reexamination Control 90/006,433
Patent 5,428,933
Co.:1
First and foremost, the analytical focus of claim construction
must begin, and remain centered, on the language of the claims
themselves. [citation omitted]. Because the claim language is
chosen by the patentee to “particularly point[ ] out and
distinctly claim[ ] the subject matter” of the invention, 35
U.S.C. §112, ¶ 2, the claim terms chosen by the patentee carry a
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.” [citation omitted]. In the
absence of an express intent to impart a novel meaning to the
claim terms, the words are presumed to take on the ordinary and
customary meanings attributed to them by those of ordinary
skill in the art.
Id. at 1088, 68 USPQ2d at 1521. Thus, the starting point for claim
interpretation is from the vantage point of the person of ordinary skill in the
art. This principle was reiterated in Phillips v. AWH Corp.2 as follows
We have made clear, moreover, that the ordinary and customary
meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would
have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the
time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the
patent application. [Citations omitted].
The inquiry into how a person of ordinary skill in the art
understands a claim term provides an objective baseline from
which to begin claim interpretation. [Citation omitted]. That
starting point is based on the well-settled understanding that
inventors are typically persons skilled in the field of the
invention and that patents are addressed to and intended to be
read by others of skill in the pertinent art.
1 346 F.3d 1082, 68 USPQ2d 1516 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
2 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013