Appeal No. 96-1809
Application 08/094,724
that the transfer element be constructed from a material
having an impermeable surface or whether the claim requires
that the surface of the transfer element as a whole be
impermeable.
An examination of the specification reveals that claim 1
requires the surface of the transfer element as a whole to be
impermeable. See In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (during patent examination claims in
an application are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification); In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989) (“During patent examination the pending claims must be
interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. When
the applicant states the meaning that the claim terms are
intended to have,
the claims are examined with that meaning, in order to achieve
a complete exploration of the applicant’s invention and its
relation to the prior art.”); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393,
1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969) (claim cannot be
read in a vacuum, but rather must be read in light of
specification
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007