Appeal No. 97-2597
Application 08/176,056
explains and defines a term used in the claims, without
ambiguity or incompleteness, there is no need to search
further for the meaning of the term. Multiform Desiccants,
Inc. V. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477, 45 USPQ2d 1429, 1433
(Fed. Cir. 1998).
Here, appellants’ specification defines of the term
“elastically extensible” as being
able to be stretched, without rupture, from the free
length at least about 50 percent, preferably at
least about 100 percent, more preferably at least
about 350 percent, held about 15 seconds, and within
about 5 minutes return to within about 10 percent of
the free length upon release of the force which
causes such elongation to occur. [Specification,
page 6.]
Unlike the examiner, we do not find this definition to be
ambiguous, especially when given its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. When so
interpreted, it is clear that the term “elastically
extensible” as used herein means being able to be stretched
“at least about 50 percent.” Accordingly, we will not sustain
this rejection.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007