Appeal No. 2003-2021 Page 4
Application No. 09/753,703
Specification, page 9, ll. 1-4 (Brief, page 6; Answer, page 5;
Reply Brief, page 2). Accordingly, the dispositive issues are
the examiner’s claim interpretation of “a material that absorbs
electromagnetic radiation” and the examiner’s finding that the
barrier glob top materials disclosed by Akram absorb
electromagnetic radiation.
The language of the claims must be given its broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the specification as it
would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). The claimed language “a material that absorbs
electromagnetic radiation” is defined in the specification as
synonymous with a “lossy” material, i.e., a material that
presents a lossy interface to high-frequency electromagnetic
currents (specification, page 3, ll. 3-10; see also page 5, ll.
2-4).1 Suitable examples of “lossy” materials are taught on
pages 8-9 of the specification. Accordingly, we determine that
the scope of the claimed “material that absorbs electromagnetic
1The examiner has failed to show why resort to a dictionary
definition is needed to ascertain the scope of “lossy” or why
“dielectric” is synonymous with “lossy” as this word is used in
appellant’s specification. See Anderson v. Int’l Eng’g & Mfg.,
Inc., 160 F.3d 1345, 1348-49, 48 USPQ2d 1631, 1634 (Fed. Cir.
1998)(“[D]ictionary definitions of ordinary words are rarely
dispositive of their meanings in a technological context. A word
describing patented technology takes its definition from the
context in which it was used by the inventor.”).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007