Appeal 2007-2140
Application 09/892,790
Patent 5,917,679
prevents either of the short legs of center pad 108 from serving as the
“sidewall portion” defined by claims 21 and 31. We disagree.
In effect Appellants’ argue for a narrow definition of the claim term
“side wall” that require a “side wall” to adjoin the side of the slider as does
side rails 112 and 114. Such a narrow definition would preclude the short
legs of center pad 108. One such use of the term is found in Appellants’
Specification at column 4, lines 26-31. (See Finding of Fact 2.) However,
Appellants’ Specification also uses the term to describe straight line
segments of the cross rail which do not adjoin the slider sides. (See Finding
of Fact 4.) As our reviewing court stated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1315, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005):
The claims, of course, do not stand alone. Rather, they are part
of “a fully integrated written instrument,” Markman, 52 F.3d at
978, consisting principally of a specification that concludes
with the claims. For that reason, claims “must be read in view
of the specification, of which they are a part.” Id. at 979. As we
stated in Vitronics, the specification “is always highly relevant
to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is
the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” 90
F.3d at 1582.
Moreover, in prosecution before the Patent Office, claims are given
their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In
re American Academy of Science Tech. Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70
USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
- 23 -
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013