Appeal No. 1997-3103
Application 08/449,647
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d
1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548,
218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549,
551, 190 USPQ 461, 463 (CCPA 1976); In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d
545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976).
Appellant’s specification (page 12, lines 28-40) defines
“aperture” as being inclusive of both a through hole and a
hole which extends partially through the substrate, i.e., a
blind hole. One of the dictionary definitions of “aperture”
is “hole”, and one of the dictionary definitions of “hole” is
“an opening into or through anything” (attachments to brief
filed
December 17, 1996; paper no. 19½). Thus, appellant’s use of
the term “apertures” to include “blind holes” is consistent
with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term
“apertures”.
For the above reasons, we reverse the rejection under 35
-6-6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007