Ex Parte Pisarsky - Page 7

            Appeal 2007-2005                                                                                
            Application 10/066,110                                                                          

        1                                 PRINCIPLES OF LAW                                                 
        2          Claim Construction                                                                       
        3          We begin with the language of the claims.  The general rule is that terms in             
        4   the claim are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning.  Johnson                        
        5   Worldwide Assocs. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 989, 50 USPQ2d 1607, 1610                       
        6   (Fed. Cir. 1999).  In the USPTO, claims are given their broadest reasonable                     
        7   interpretation in light of the Specification as interpreted by one of ordinary skill in         
        8   the art.                                                                                        
        9          [T]he Board is required to use a different standard for construing                       
       10          claims than that used by district courts. We have held that it is error                  
       11          for the Board to “appl[y] the mode of claim interpretation that is used                  
       12          by courts in litigation, when interpreting the claims of issued patents                  
       13          in connection with determinations of infringement and validity.” In re                   
       14          Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989); accord                        
       15          In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997)                       
       16          (“It would be inconsistent with the role assigned to the PTO in issuing                  
       17          a patent to require it to interpret claims in the same manner as judges                  
       18          who, post-issuance, operate under the assumption the patent is                           
       19          valid.”). Instead, as we explained above, the PTO is obligated to give                   
       20          claims their broadest reasonable interpretation during examination.                      
       21   In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364,  70 U.S.P.Q.2d                          
       22                                                                                                   
       23   1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004).                                                                    
       24                                                                                                   
       25          “ [A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for               
       26   it.”   Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp. , 55                 
       27   F.3d 615, 620, 34 USPQ2d 1816, 1820 (Fed.Cir. 1995).  If the claim preamble,                    
       28   when read in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations of the claim, or, if          
       29   the claim preamble is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claim,             
       30   then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim.                  

                                                     7                                                      


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013