Appeal No. 2002-1749
Application No. 09/395,270
2000). See also Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Sony Corp., 181 F.3d
1313, 1322, 50 USPQ2d 1865, 1870 (Fed. Cir. 1999). However, such
a result can ensue when the method steps implicitly require that
they be in the order written. Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v.
CompuServe Inc., 256 F.3d at 1342-43, 59 USPQ2d at 1416.
In the present case, nothing in the claim language requires
as a matter of logic or grammar that the step of placing the
sheet on an existing subfloor to be performed before the step of
placing the carpet on the sheet. Moreover, nowhere in the
specification is there any statement that the order of steps as
written in the claim is important, or any disclaimer of any other
order of steps. In this regard, while we appreciate that the
method of installation described in the paragraph spanning pages
6 and 7 of the specification calls for a particular order of
steps, there is no indication that this is the only order of
steps that will achieve appellant’s objective of providing
dimensionally stability to the new carpeting. Thus, we conclude
that appellant’s claim 1 does not require the step of placing the
sheet on an existing subfloor to be performed before the step of
placing the carpet on the sheet. It follows that appellant’s
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007