Appeal No. 2001-1723
Application No. 09/112,263
including “SiO2". See also Schnable, column 1, lines 15-22 and Webster’s II New Riverside
Dictionary, page 533. Further, we observe that Hackh’s Chemical Dictionary relies upon by the
appellants provides a broad definition of “glass” followed by specific examples of glass
compositions. As indicated by the examiner in his Supplemental Answer, the broad definition
therein includes the “SiO2" layer described in the Hotaling references. Even if “glass” defined in
Hackh’s Chemical Dictionary is limited to specific non-SiO2 glass compositions, we determine that
the broadest reasonable definition provided in either Schnable or Webster’s II New Riverside
Dictionary is controlling. As pointed out by In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1051, 44 USPQ2d 1753,
1759 (Fed. Cir. 1997):
Absent an express definition in their specification, the fact that appellants can point
to definitions or usages that conform to their interpretation does not make the
[examiner’s] definition unreasonable when the [examiner] can point to other sources
that support their interpretation.
The appellants also argue that the functional limitation recited in the preamble of claim 1
further distinguishes the claimed substrate over the prior art substrate. We are not persuaded by this
argument.
As the court stated in In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA
1971):
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007