Appeal No. 2001-1723
Application No. 09/112,263
The appellants argue that the SiO2 layer described in Hotaling ‘364 and ‘776 is not a “glass”
layer as required by the claims on appeal. We are not persuaded by this argument for the reasons
well articulated by the examiner in his Answer and Supplemental Answer. We add the following
for emphasis.
As our reviewing court in In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1321-22 (Fed.
Cir. 1989) stated that during prosecution or examination of a patent application, the claims therein
are interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. When the
applicant state the meaning that the claim terms are intended to have,
the claims are examined with that meaning, in order to achieve a
complete exploration of the applicant’s invention and its relation to
the prior art.
The purpose of giving the broadest reasonable interpretation, absent the definition in the
specification to the contrary, is to allow the appellants to amend4 their claims to obtain the proper
coverage by express claim language, “the thought being to reduce the possibility that, after the
patent is granted, the claims may be interpreted as giving broader coverage than is justified.” In re
Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (1969).
Here, as indicated by the examiner in his Answer and Supplemental Answer, the
specification does not define the meaning of “glass” to exclude the planarizing “SiO2" layer
described in the Hotaling references. Also, we observe that the appellants do not dispute that both
Schnable and Webster’s II New Riverside Dictionary referred to by the examiner define “glass” as
4 Prosecution, unlike litigation, allows appellants to amend claims.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007