Appeal No. 1996-1897
Application 08/064,145
On this basis, we find that one of ordinary skill in this art would interpret the term “a plastic
material” and the term “thermoplastic” to include polymers which contain fillers that can be reinforcing
agents. Morris, 127 F.3d at 1055-56, 44 USPQ2d at 1029 (“Absent an express definition in their
specification, the fact that appellants can point to definitions or usages that conform to their
interpretations doe not make the PTO’s definition unreasonable when the PTO can point to other
sources that support its interpretation.”). Furthermore, we point out that, as a matter of general claim
construction principles, the art recognized meanings of the terms “a plastic material” and “thermoplastic”
are not affected by the transitional phrases “comprising,” as in claims 12 and 13, and “consisting of,” as
in claim 28. These transitional terms respectively “open” and “close” a claim with respect to whether it
can contain, inter alia, an additional material other than that expressly stated and thus have no affect
on the content of an expressly stated material. See generally, Exxon Chemical Patents Inc. v.
Lubrizol Corp., 64 F.3d 1553, 1555, 35 USPQ2d 1801, 1802 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The claimed
composition is defined as comprising - meaning containing at least - five specific ingredients.”); In re
Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686-87, 210 USPQ 795, 802-03 (CCPA 1981) (“As long as one of the
monomers in the reaction is propylene, any other monomer may be present, because the term
‘comprises’ permits the inclusion of other steps, elements, or materials.”); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ
448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) (The term “consisting of . . . [closes] the claim to the inclusion of materials
other than those recited except for impurities ordinarily associated therewith.”). We find no disclosure
in appellants’ specification which would require a different result.
The other terms requiring consideration are “ribs” and “webs” which appear in the appealed
claims in such phrases as “several spaced apart ribs connected along a surface of said metal workpiece
through webs,” in claim 12, and “several spaced apart ribs connected through webs,” in claim 26. In
oral argument, appellants took the position that the terms “ribs” and “webs” are used in their
specification and claims with the common meaning associated with the terms. We agree because we
find that one of ordinary skill in this art would interpret “ribs” and “webs” in light of appellants’
specification, wherein it is disclosed that “ribs 6 . . . are kept at a distance from one another by webs 7
and 8” (page 7), to be consistent with the ordinary dictionary meaning of “rib” and “web” as found in
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007