Appeal No. 2001-0368
Application No. 09/008,675
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being clearly anticipated by Perkins.
Appellants do not seek reconsideration of the rejections made
against other claims on other grounds.
In their request for rehearing, appellants submit that our
interpretation of the word “wrapping” in claim 1, based upon its
dictionary definition, is somehow inconsistent with the way in
which it is used in appellants’ specification. We respectfully
disagree.
Claims in an application are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.
In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1983). We see no inconsistency in construing the verb “wrap”
broadly as meaning “to envelop, surround or embrace.” In this
regard, we note that appellants’ specification uses the term on
page 10, lines 15-22, when referring to a specific embodiment
without excluding other possible embodiments. Further, we note
that original claim 14, in defining appellants’ invention, does
not even use the term “wrap” or “wrapping.” Rather, claim
14 defines the relationship between the vapor-impervious film and
the belt as one where the film is placed “against and extending
around” the outwardly facing surface of the belt. Thus, it is
clear that appellants’ specification is open to, and consistent
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007