Appeal No. 96-3533
Application 08/203,624
1. A method of dispersing fibers in an electromagnetic-attenuating coating and applying the
coating to a substrate, comprising steps of:
mixing a coating material comprising fibers and resin in a container by shaking the container
such that the fibers are uniformly dispersed in the resin without breaking the fibers;
feeding the coating material from the container while maintaining the fibers uniformly
dispersed in the resin and without breaking the fibers; and
applying the coating material to the substrate.
According to appellants, we improperly read “the claimed phrase on an aqueous suspension of
fibers and powder resins” and thus “on Gamble’s ‘papermaking’ process” shown in Gamble Example I”
that involves “stirring a slurry of . . . aluminum coated glass fibers and . . . high density polyethylene
powders in . . . water,” which “mixes fibers in water, not in a resin, as claimed” (request, page 7).
Appellants contrast this result with the “method wherein the fibers are mixed in a molten resin,” citing
Gamble, col. 7, lines 14-25, which process they also describe as “dispersing fibers in a resin matrix,”
citing Gamble, col. 5, lines 6-15 (id., page 8). In other words, appellants allege that “the Board
confuses ‘mixing fibers in an aqueous slurry’ with ‘mixing fibers in a resin’” (id., n.4; see also page 9).
Thus, the issue of claim interpretation involves essentially the first stated step of the claimed method
encompassed by claim 1.
The difficulty that we have with appellants’ position is that (1) they have not stated why our
interpretation of the terms of claim 1 which lead us to apply the teachings of Gamble thereto as set forth
in our original opinion is unreasonable in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in this art; (2) they have not expressly stated their interpretation of the cited claimed phrase
in the context in which it appears in claim 1 but imply in their argument only that under their definition,
the fibers can be uniformly dispersed by shaking “in a molten resin” or “in a resin matrix,” the latter term
undefined, but not in a resin when slurried with other ingredients in an aqueous medium; and (3) they
have not expressly stated the basis for the interpretation implied in their argument in their specification as
it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in this art.
As we recognized in our original opinion (page 3), the interpretation of the scope of the
appealed claims requires that the broadest reasonable interpretation must be given to the terms thereof
consistent with appellants’ specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in this art, see
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007