APPLICATION OF TAYLOR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the term 'tube' in an allowed patent claim does not, in its ordinary meaning, encompass a 'cup-shaped part with an integral base' described in a rejected claim.
An applicant sought a patent for inductance coils. Seven claims were allowed, but claim 28 was rejected because it was readable on a non-elected speci…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Patent Claims Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
That contention necessarily means that the shield 58 of Fig. 12, described in claim 28 as a “cup-shaped part with an integral base,” must be construed to be a “tube” within the ordinary meaning of that term. The sole point for determination here, therefore, is whether such contention is correct.
The board, in denying a petition for reconsideration stated as follows: “ * * * While it is true that the shielding member 58 of Figure 12 includes a tubular portion, when this member is considered in its entirety, it is not a tube but is rather of cup>shaped form and is so described in the specification. * * *” (Italics ours.)
We are in agreement with the reasoning of the board that “cup-shaped part” 58, considered in its entirety, is not a “tube.” Nor do we think that the term “tube” includes a “cup-shaped part with an integral base” within the scope of its ordinary meaning.
There are various kinds of tubes but nowhere have we been able to find any similarity between “tube,” in either a generic or specific sense, and the term “cup-shaped.” The dictionaries are all to the same effect as may be illustrated by the following definition of the word “tube”:
Webster’s New International Dictionary, Second Edition, 1949:
“tube, n. A hollow cylinder, of any material, to convey liquids or gases or for some other purpose; as, a fire tube; a water tube; a condenser tube * * * the tubes of a tubular bridge; a friction tube; the tube of a musical instrument; bronchial tube; a priming tube, etc.
“Any similar hollow conduit, often oval, square or polygonal in section.” While a cup-shaped structure may contain a tubular or cylindrical portion, we cannot understand in what manner the term “tube” in claim 60 may properly be considered to encompass, within its ordinary meaning, the “cup-shaped part with an integral base” of claim 28 and shown in Fig. 12. As argued by counsel for appellant, terms in a claim should be considered to be used in their ordinary meaning. In our opinion, the use of the terms in issue, in the manner proposed by appellant, involves an unreasonably strained interpretation of their ordinary meaning. To permit such use would be to ignore the very rules of law which appellant avers are governing in this case.
We find no error in the holding of the Board of Appeals and its decision is accordingly affirmed.
Affirmed.
GARRETT, Chief Judge, did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.