Appeal No. 1997-2444
Application 08/248,941
in appellant’s specification (page 9, line 5, through page 10,
line 19). 4
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 “submicron microstructure” consistent with pages
9
4See Paper No. 10, page 2, wherein appellant discussed
how the amended claim language relating to the submicron
structure is supported in the original application and
differs from the cathode of Higashimoto. Also, see pages 2,
4, and 5 of appellant’s brief.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007