Appeal 2007-1451
Application 09/970,146
1
2 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
3 Claim Construction
4 The general rule is that terms in the claim are to be given their ordinary and
5 accustomed meaning. Johnson Worldwide Assocs. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985,
6 989, 50 USPQ2d 1607, 1610 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In the USPTO, claims are
7 construed giving their broadest reasonable interpretation.
8 [T]he Board is required to use a different standard for construing
9 claims than that used by district courts. We have held that it is error
10 for the Board to “appl[y] the mode of claim interpretation that is used
11 by courts in litigation, when interpreting the claims of issued patents
12 in connection with determinations of infringement and validity.” In re
13 Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989); accord
14 In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
15 (“It would be inconsistent with the role assigned to the PTO in issuing
16 a patent to require it to interpret claims in the same manner as judges
17 who, post-issuance, operate under the assumption the patent is
18 valid.”). Instead, as we explained above, the PTO is obligated to give
19 claims their broadest reasonable interpretation during examination.
20 In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1827,
21 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
22
23 Anticipation
24 "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim
25 is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference."
26 Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d
27 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). "When a claim covers several structures or
28 compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013