Appeal 2007-1906
Application 11/127,887
with the specification, and that claim language should be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057,
1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993) citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d
1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Here, Appellant provides in the Specification, under a Detailed
Description of a Preferred Embodiment heading, a description of propylene
copolymers that may be used in the base layer as being copolymers that
“generally comprise . . . up to about 40% by weight of at least one alpha-
olefin selected from ethylene and alpha-olefins containing from 4 to about 8
carbon atoms” (Specification 8). Also, the Specification provides that the
polyethylene component of the film “may comprise a polyethylene, such as
low density, linear low density, high density, very high density polyethylene
as well as ethylene copolymers” (Specification 10).
Clearly, these statements make it clear by the permissive term “may”
that they are not limiting definitions for the claim terms “propylene
copolymer” and “polyethylene” or “ethylene copolymer” for the disclosed
preferred embodiment much less narrow definitions that must be applied to
the claim terms in giving the appealed claims their broadest reasonable
construction as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Indeed, the Specification proclaims that:
While the invention has been explained in relation to its
preferred embodiments, it is to be understood that various
modifications thereof will become apparent to those skilled in
the art upon reading the specification. Therefore, it is to be
understood that the invention disclosed herein is intended to
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013