Appeal No. 1998-1412
Application No. 08/397,124
Appellants have indicated (Brief, page 3) that, for the purposes of this appeal,
claims 12-17 will stand or fall together. Accordingly, we will select one claim as
representative of all of the claims on appeal. Note In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325,
231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217
USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983). We will limit our discussion to claim 12 which is the
sole independent claim.
Our initial inquiry is directed to the scope of the claimed subject matter. During
patent prosecution, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, and the claim language is to be read in view of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); 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 Okuzawa, 537 F.2d
545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976).
Our construction of the subject matter defined by appellants’ claim 12 is that
the claimed subject matter is directed to a “composite material” which has an intended
use for screening solar radiation. Our view is entirely consistent with that of the
Appellants who disclose that, “[t]he aim of the invention is to provide a composite
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007