Appeal No. 2006-1117 Page 5
Application No. 10/461,308
(specification, page 12, ll. 25-27). Contrary to appellants’
argument (Brief, page 5), we find no express disclaimer that every
“layer” must be a different polymer (specification, page 9, ll. 22-
36). See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1210-11
(Fed. Cir. 2004)(The PTO should only limit the claim based on an
express disclaimer of a broader definition).
In view of the above discussion, we construe claim 1 on appeal
as including a film structure of at least two layers, possibly
including any other layers or elements, with at least one layer
designated as the “first resin layer” including at least a portion
of PPN and at least another layer designated as the “second resin
layer” including at least a portion of PET, where the first and
second resin layers may be in any position or order in the
structure.
Therefore we determine that appellants’ arguments are not well
taken. Appellants, contrary to their own argument, admit that
Rayburn describes that the web comprises a film and has two layers
(Brief, page 3), although we note that this “web” includes both a
metallized layer and an opposite dielectric layer (see Rayburn,
col. 2, ll. 8-10, and Figure 3). Rayburn also clearly discloses
structures including multiple webs (see Figures 2 and 3 as well as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007