Appeal No. 96-3737
Application No. 08/203,840
column 3). Thus, the examiner has made a clearly erroneous
finding of fact in contending that figures 2 and 3 of McNeal
show the use of a block of material which deforms and fills a
recess during a method of fabricating a multilayer structure
in accordance with the appealed claims.
Additionally, we do not consider as well taken the
examiner's position that the use of a "resilient, compliant
material" in accordance with the independent claim on appeal
is satisfied by McNeal's disclosure of a plug fabricated from
rubber based on the aforequoted proposition that "[r]ubber is
a resilient, compliant material". In this regard, it is
axiomatic that claim language should be read in light of the
specification. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Thus, in the case at bar, it must
be determined whether rubber is a resilient, compliant
material within the meaning of the appealed claims when read
in light of the specification disclosure (e.g., see the
paragraph bridging pages 7 and 8 and the first full paragraph
on page 8 of the subject specification). This determination
involves consideration of several factors including whether
the rubber is vulcanized (and to what extent) or unvulcanized
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007