1. The subject matter of the Interference
This interference relates to superconducting wires and other superconducting products. More
particularly, it relates to superconducting products having a continuous superconducting oxide phase
combined with a noble metal such as silver (Ag). The count is
A superconducting composite according to Claim 55 of Yamada application 08/320,785
or
a superconducting composite according to Claim 1 Yurek Patent 5,189,009.
Yamada’s Claim 55 and Yurek’s Claim 1 provide:
. 55. A superconducting wire having:
an Ag matrix; and
a continuous oxide superconductor formed in said matrix.
1. A superconducting composite comprising
a continuous copper containing superconducting oxide phase in
intimate contact with a noble metal phase to provide said
superconducting composite with improved mechanical properties.
2. Claim construction
Yamada’s position depends on broad construction of Yurek’s claims. Yamada argues that
Yurek’s claim 1 embraces a wide variety of superconducting composites while Yamada’s claims are
directed only to a single one of these species. Yamada states:
Claim 1 of the Yurek patent embraces a very large number of species of
superconducting composites. The recitation in [Yurek’s Claim 1] that claim
that the “superconducting oxide phase [is] in intimate contact with a noble
metal phase” includes any composition in which there is no separation
between the superconducting oxide phase and the noble metal phase-- i.e., in
which the superconducting oxide phase and the noble metal phase are in
direct contact.
Paper 27, p. 10, (1st brackets added, 2nd original, exhibit citations deleted). Yamada relies upon
the opinion testimony of Alexander Otto as support. Yamada Ex. 1005, ¶ 23.
We do not agree with Yamada’s claim construction. In construing the claims we must
examine the patent's specification and prosecution history to determine whether the patentee has
given the claim terms a particular meaning. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576,
1582, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding that "it is always necessary to review the
specification to determine whether the inventor has used any terms in a manner inconsistent with
their ordinary meaning [because the specification] acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007