Interference No. 104,190
additional metal ply applied to the laminate that is the first
blade. This additional layer provides support in flexure,
according to the junior party.
We have considered the language of the count and the
respective arguments of the parties and we are of the view
that both ascribed meanings are reasonable. Accordingly, we
have reached the conclusion that the count is ambiguous, and 4
it is appropriate to construe the interference count in view
of the specification from which the claim the count is based
on originated and, if necessary, extrinsic evidence. 5
4An additional ambiguity, related to the argued one, is
that in subparagraph (a), the term “first . . . metal blade”
appears to refer only to the metal layer of the blade, i.e.,
the first metal blade has an insulative layer and conductive
electrode thereon. In subparagraph (d), the electrode is
referred to as a part of the first metal blade, “of” rather
than “on” the blade.
5Strictly speaking, the count does not correspond exactly
to any claim in an application or patent, inasmuch as the
count was broadened by motion in the preliminary motion
period. The count was broadened to the extent that only one
laminated blade is required, rather than “first and second”
such blades as claim 1 of the Parins patent recites.
Nonetheless, the language at issue, viz., “said first metal
blade supporting an insulative layer . . . and an electrically
conductive electrode member on the insulative layer,” remains
unchanged from the Parins patent. It is in this language that
we have determined an ambiguity exists.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007