Appeal 2007-3378
Application 10/715,458
Appellants do not present separate arguments for any claim apart from
the others and, therefore, we select one claim as representative. We select
claim 16.
In order to revolve the issues on appeal, it is first necessary to
understand the scope of the claims, and specifically to understand the scope
of the phrases “predetermined operation pattern” and “operational state.” To
interpret these phrases we seek guidance from the Specification. During
examination, "claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim language
should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
First, we find that the Specification provides no specific definition for
the phrases at issue, nor any clear disavowal of meaning that would be
attributed to the phrases by those of ordinary skill in the process control art.
See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315-316, 675 USPQ2d 1321,
1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“the specification may reveal a special definition
given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would
otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor's lexicography governs.”);
American Academy of Science, 367 F.3d at 1365, 70 USPQ2d at 1831
(holding that an applicant “may demonstrate an intent to deviate from the
ordinary and accustomed meaning of a claim term by including in the
specification expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing
a clear disavowal of claim scope.”); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480,
31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“Although an inventor is indeed
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013