Appeal No. 1997-3099
Application 08/191,886
The examiner, alternatively, urges that the use of “about”, in defining the claimed
range, permits latitude in interpreting the limitation of the thickness of the core layer and
therefore that the parameters described by Newsome is encompassed by the claims.
(Paper No. 11, page 7). However, there is no evidence before us which would indicate the
latitude with which one skilled in this art would interpret the use of the term “about” in the
present claims. As stated by our reviewing court in Modine Mfg Co. v. U.S. Int'l Trade
Comm'n, 75 F.3d 1545, 1554, 37 USPQ2d 1609, 1615 (Fed. Cir. 1996):
Such broadening usages as “about” must be given reasonable
scope; they must be viewed by the decisionmaker as they
would be understood by persons experienced in the field of the
invention. (Citation omitted). Although it is rarely feasible to
attach a precise limit to “about,” the usage can usually be
understood in light of the technology embodied in the
invention. When the claims are applied to an accused device,
it is a question of technologic fact whether the accused device
meets a reasonable meaning of “about” in the particular
circumstances.
Here, the examiner has provided no facts or evidence which would reasonably support a
conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art, relating to films and process of preparing
films, would have regarded “about” 0.10 mils (Specification, page 16) as encompassing
the lower limit of 0.15 mils of the Newsome core layer.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007