Appeal No. 2004-2196
Application 09/902,055
body transversely to the direction of travel of the backing material. We further determine that
preambular language of this claim permits claim 1 to include any manner of method of applying
liquid or pasty substances to a backing material by means of a die at least partly to the backing
material traveling along the die. 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).
Contrary to appellants’ arguments, we find no basis in the language of appealed claim 1
or in the written description of the specification on which to read into the language of this claim
any limitations based on the figures and related disclosure of the specification, including the
location of the temperature zones of the die or the manner or extent that the temperature
differences between the zones induces bending of the die body. See Morris, supra; Zletz, supra;
Priest, supra.
Thus, upon comparing the teachings of Moriarty with the language of appealed claim 1 as
we have interpreted it above, we agree with the examiner that the die of Moriarty falls within the
claim. This is because Moriarity would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in this art that a
die lip, which is a part of the die body, is flexed or bent by heating at least two different zones or
positions by different rod heaters in those positions.2 In this respect, we determine that the
common, dictionary meaning of “flexure” or “flex” includes “bend” and “[t]o bend,”
respectively.3 We particularly note the following disclosure in Moriarity relied on by the
examiner:
2 It is well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the
inferences one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably been expected to draw
therefrom, see Fritch, 972 F.2d at 1264-65, 23 USPQ2d at 1782-83 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Preda,
401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968), presuming skill on the part of this person.
In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
3 See, e.g., The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition 512-13 (Boston,
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1982).
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007