Ex Parte Andrews - Page 4


               Appeal No. 2004-1649                                                                                                   
               Application 09/864,770                                                                                                 

               05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).”).  When the specification does not contain an express                           
               definition, a reasonable, supported interpretation of the appealed claims that differs from that                       
               urged by appellant can be used to determine the patentability of the claims.  Morris, 127 F.3d at                      
               1055-56, 44 USPQ2d at 1028-30 (“Absent an express definition in their specification, the fact                          
               that appellants can point to definitions or usages that conform to their interpretation does not                       
               make the PTO’s definition unreasonable when the PTO can point to other sources that support its                        
               interpretation.”).  Thus, “[i]t is the applicants’ burden to precisely define the invention, not the                   
               PTO’s. See 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 [statute omitted].”  Morris, 127 F.3d at 1055-56, 44 USPQ2d at                          
               1029.                                                                                                                  
                       We determine that the preambular language “a geological formation, concrete structure,                         
               or other grainy or textured solid, non-flexible surface” and the language “a rock or other solid,                      
               grainy, textured surface” in the body of appealed claim 8, when considered in the context of the                       
               claimed invention as a whole, including consideration thereof in light of the written description                      
               in appellant’s specification, must be given weight as a claim limitation which characterizes the                       
               claimed method in order to give meaning to the claim and properly define the invention.  See                           
               generally In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1262, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1781 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing                             
               Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 896, 221 USPQ 669, 675 (Fed.                                 
               Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857[, 225 USPQ 792] (1984)); Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo                             
               Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257, 9 USPQ2d 1962, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1989), In re Stencel,                          
               828 F.2d 751, 754-55, 4 USPQ2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1987).                                                            
                       Appellant’s specification includes the following disclosure: “a decal which has                                
               application to uneven surfaces and even surfaces which might be characterized as grainy or                             
               textured” (page 1);  the “decal can be transferred to the surface of a geological formation such as                    
               a rock or stone or to a concrete or cement structure” (page 2);  the “decal . . . can be applied to                    
               and adhere to a grainy, textured surface, such as concrete” (id.);  the “decal . . . can be applied to                 
               and adhere to a geological formation, such as a rock” (id.);  the “decal . . . to decorate the surface                 
               of a geological formation, such as a rock or a concrete structure” (id.);  the “decal adherable to an                  
               uneven grainy or textured surface, including that of a geological formation, such as a rock or a                       



                                                                - 4 -                                                                 



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007