Appeal No. 95-2270
Application 08/005,856
cross-linking agent" within the context of the Claim 45
composition.
Claim interpretation is a legal question to be resolved
based on the facts in a particular case. Ethicon Endo-Surgery,
Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 93 F.3d 1572, 1577, 40 USPQ2d 1019,
1022 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (significance to be given a limitation in a
patent claim is a question of law which is resolved based on
particular facts); Moeller v. Ionetics, Inc., 794 F.2d 653, 229
USPQ 992 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (construction of claim is a question of
law). The meaning of words or phrases in a claim may be
ascertained from the language of the claims, the specification
and prosecution history. Smithkline Diagnostic, Inc. v. Helena
Laboratories Corp., 859 F.2d 878, 882, 8 USPQ2d 1468, 1471 (Fed.
Cir. 1988).
It should be also noted that during examination, claims
before the PTO are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393,
1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).
The examiner found that the monomeric or polymeric alkyl
silicates of Goodwin were silicone cross-linking agents within
the context of the Claim 45 composition. We cannot agree.
Goodwin describes an organopolysiloxane pressure-sensitive
adhesive which comprises a reaction product of two items, a
- 13 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007