Appeal 2007-2817
Application 11/049,176
F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367
F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548 (Fed. Cir.
1983). Although a patent applicant is entitled to be his or her own lexicographer of
patent claim terms, in ex parte prosecution it must be within limits. In re Corr,
347 F.2d 578, 580 (CCPA 1965). The applicant must do so by placing such
definitions in the Specification with sufficient clarity to provide a person of
ordinary skill in the art with clear and precise notice of the meaning that is to be
construed. See also In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (although
an inventor is free to define the specific terms used to describe the invention, this
must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision; where an
inventor chooses to give terms uncommon meanings, the inventor must set out any
uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure so as to give
one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change).
Although the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “integral” would
arguably encompass parts which are welded or bonded together1, in the present
case, the Appellants’ Specification clearly indicates that the term “integral”
excludes joining by welding or other fastening means and requires the “integral”
subframe to be cast as a unitary member. In particular, the Specification
consistently refers to the subframe as a one-piece or unitary member, specifically
cast from aluminum (Specification ¶¶ 5 and 27). Furthermore, as noted by
1 A common definition of “integral,” as an adjective, is “1. Essential or necessary
for completeness; constituent… 2. Possessing everything essential; entire.” The
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed. 2000), found at
www.bartelby.com.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013