Interference No. 103,141
does not attack this factual finding. Instead, Sawada argues
that the APJ has misconstrued this limitation of count 3.
Sawada argues that the APJ has too
narrowly interpreted the orifice-free limitations as requiring
that not only the sidewall of the pipe but also the ends
thereof be sealed in order for the pipe to be considered
orifice-free. Sawada Brief at 16.
The limitation in question is set out in paragraph
(a) of count 3 as follows:
(a) forming an intermediate body
comprising a normal metal, orifice-free
cladding surrounding a quantity of oxide
powder and in contact therewith.
Sawada argues that the APJ’s emphasis on the ends of the pipe
misses the mark. However, we disagree. The count in
interference says nothing about a pipe. The count requires a
cladding. Yet Sawada discusses the limitations of the count
as if it refers to a “pipe.” As we construe count 3, it
requires a cladding that surrounds the powder and is orifice-
free. We give both of these expressions their common,
everyday meaning. “Surround” is generally taken to mean
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007