Appeal No. 1996-3472
Application 08/192,088
alumina abrasive grains (Brief, pages 2 and 8). In any
anticipation or obviousness analysis, the claim must first be
correctly construed to define the scope and meaning of each
contested limitation. Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454,
1457, 1460 n.3, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032, 1035 n.3 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
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). Giving the broadest reasonable
interpretation to the claimed term “sol-gel alumina abrasive
grains” consistent with pages 5-6 of the specification, we
agree with appellants that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have interpreted this term to mean alumina with specific
physical characteristics. As appellants point out on page 63
of the Brief, the examiner has failed to identify any
3See also the meaning of sol-gel alumina abrasive grains
as disclosed by the prior art, i.e., Rue and Cottringer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007