Appeal No. 2002-2080
Application 09/358,484
the surface, or the extent to which the “surface” must be covered by that first layer. We are of
the opinion that it would reasonably appear to one skilled in this art from this disclosure that,
broadly, “a sintered article” must only “consist mainly of aluminum nitride” and provide a
“surface” upon which the “smooth dense surface layer” can be formed by the steps of applying a
paste of oxide glass in the required single or plural layer(s) in order to prepare an aluminum
nitride ceramic with thermal conductivity and surface smoothness, only the latter characteristic
being specified in the appealed claims.
Thus, in giving the claim terms the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
written description in the specification, “a surface” of the “a sintered article of aluminum nitride”
would include a surface of the aluminum nitride containing layer of the article, a modified
surface of that layer, and a surface of a layer deposited on that layer.
Indeed, the only description that the specification provides for “a surface” is the
preference for oxidation thereof prior to applying the paste of oxide glass, and since the “mainly”
amount of aluminum nitride can be less than “preferably more than 80% by weight,” the nature
of the surface, without or without oxidation, is also not defined, the disclosure of “alumina layer”
and the oxidized surfaces in the Examples notwithstanding. We find no specificity in this
instance in the common dictionary meaning of the terms “surface” and “article,” particularly
since the terms are preceded by the indefinite article “a.”6 See generally, KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic
Concepts Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1355-56, 55 USPQ2d 1835, 1839 (Fed. Cir. 2000). We further
find no basis in the plain language of the appealed claims or in the written description of the
specification on which to read into the claims any limitation of the specification, including any
preferred embodiment or example. See generally, Morris, supra; see also Zletz, supra; In re
Priest, 582 F.2d 33, 37, 199 USPQ 11, 15 (CCPA 1978); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05,
162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969). In this respect, it is appellants’ burden to define the
claimed invention encompassed by the appealed claims in the specification. See Morris,
127 F.3d at 1055-56, 44 USPQ2d at 1029.
6 E.g., The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, pages 86, 130 and 1223
(Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1982).
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007