Appeal No. 96-3969
Application No. 08/271,311
illustrated 90 degree angle of incidence. After careful
review of the arguments of record and of the Rabl reference,
we are in agreement with Appellants. It is axiomatic that, in
proceedings before the PTO, claims in an application are to be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specification, and that claim language should be read in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544,
1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In our view, there
is nothing in the disclosure of Rabl to support the
interpretation that the illustrated 90 degree angle of
incidence is a chosen or "preferred" angle of incidence. As
to the Examiner's suggestion that even a filter which filters
light the same for all angles would meet the claimed
"preferential" angle feature, it is our view that such
interpretation is clearly unwarranted in view of the accepted
meaning of the term "preferential". We agree with Appellants
that such a broad interpretation essentially nullifies any
meaning attached to the term "preferential" which on its face
must be interpreted to mean at the very least "one or some but
not others." While we agree that the term "preferential" in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007