Appeal No. 95-4147
Application 08/151,454
interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their
broadest reasonable interpretation. [Internal quotes and
citation omitted].” In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ
289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). When words of degree are used in a
claim, it must be determined if one of ordinary skill in the
art would be apprised of the scope of the claim when the claim
is read in light of the specification. Seattle Box Co., Inc.
v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221
USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The phrase “generally being ink-impermeable” occurs in
appealed claims 1, 15 and 20 as a limitation of the carrier
layer. Appellant’s specification teaches that a
characteristic of the carrier layer is as follows:
A second characteristic of the carrier sheet is its
ability to resist penetration of the inkjet ink.
This ink resistance is necessary, so that the ink
will not coat the silicone surface. The carrier
must adhere to the silicone to allow for transport
and manipulation which would otherwise be impaired by
the penetrating ink. (Specification, page 3, lines 2-
7).
Appellant also teaches that
A second design criterion of the carrier sheet 12 is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007