with a portion of the surface defining the bone opening “to restrict movement of the bone screw” and to block “fluid flow from the opening of the bone,” col. 3, 11. 8-12; claims 4, 5, 15 and 16; and (3)' engagement of the seat portion (top plane of the screw’s body portion) with the connecting member (e.g., the spine plate) “to establish the axial location of the connecting member along the bone screw,” col. 3, II. 19-21; claims 14 and 16. These three uses of the term require a meaning broad enough to apply to each of these interfaces. Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc., 149 F.3d 1335, 1345 (Fed.Cir.1998) (“[T]he same word appearing in the same claim should be interpreted consistently.”); Fonar Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 821 F.2d 627, 632, 3 USPQ2d 1109, 1113 (Fed.Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Contrary to Danek’s assertion, “engage”
holding that statements made during the prosecution history may commit the applicant to a particular meaning for a patent term which meaning is then binding in litigation holding a technical term used in a patent document is interpreted as having the meaning that it would be given by persons experienced in the field of the invention unless it is apparent from the patent and the prosecution history that the inventor used the term with a different meaning holding that the meaning of a term in a claim must be consistent with its appearance in other claims in the same patent recognizing that the court must give meaning to all the words in the claims holding that when a term is not defined in a contract the presumption is that the term is to be given its ordinary meaning and significance