mistakenly, instead of the comparative form of the word.
The Penguin Dictionary of American Usage and Style was not
considered in rendering our decision on Bouzida preliminary
motion 1. Beamer’s opposition was not considered, since Bouzida
failed to sufficiently demonstrate that it was entitled to the
relief sought (Paper 51 at 22).
Furthermore, Bouzida did not, in its preliminary motion 1,
direct us to evidence that would demonstrate that the drafter of
Beamer claim 1 made the allegedly common mistake of using the
superlative form of the word “shallow” when the drafter intended
the comparative meaning of the word.
Bouzida appears to accuse the panel of improperly reading
limitations into Beamer claim 1 to arrive at our interpretation
(Paper 55 at 6-7). In the decision on Bouzida preliminary motion
1, the panel’s analysis began with the language of the claim
(Paper 15-16). We looked to the specification to support our
interpretation, as was pointed out in our decision (Paper 55 at
16). Thus, we disagree that we impermissibly imported
limitations into Beamer claim 1.
Bouzida disagrees with our decision to require Bouzida to
enter into evidence the examiner’s statement (Paper 55 at 9).
However, Bouzida was not penalized for not doing so. We
considered Bouzida’s arguments regarding the examiner’s
statement. Thus, this point appears moot. We reiterate, as we
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007