Appeal No. 96-3586
Application No. 08/262,848
which contain an etchant fluid of the type disclosed
in connection with FIG. 6 and marker 96 is simply a
pressure applying element capable of rupturing the
capsules in order to release the etchant fluid.
[Col. 5, line 67, through col. 6, line 4.]
Considering the embodiment of Fig. 6, in order to determine
the type of etchant fluid used, Altman in col. 5, lines 29 and
30, refers to "the dyes in etchant fluid 86, 112" and in col.
5, lines 3-21, makes it clear that the fluid 86 (i.e., "ink" -
see col. 5, line 3) of this embodiment contains both a dye and
an etchant. Thus, in the alternative embodiment of Fig. 7,
both the "ink" and etchant are contained in the microcapsules.
Accordingly, giving the terminology of independent claim 14
its broadest reasonable interpretation, a "mixture of a 2
visible ink and an encapsulated surface etchant" can be
considered to be applied to the etchable surface 88 when the
microcapsules are ruptured by the pressure applying element in
the alternative embodiment of Fig. 7. It is also clear that
2The terminology in a pending application's claims is to
be given its broadest reasonable interpretation (In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and
In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed.
Cir. 1989)) and limitations from a pending application's
specification will not be read into the claims (Sjolund v.
Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581-82, 6 USPQ2d 2020, 2027 (Fed.
Cir. 1988)).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007