Appeal No. 2002-0510 Page 13
Application No. 09/139,309
Here, although the appellants point out differences in what claims 5, 6, and 7
cover, (Appeal Br. at 15), this is not an argument why the claims are separately
patentable. Furthermore, they do not argue the patentability of claim 8 separately.
Therefore, claims 6- 8 stand or fall with representative claim 5.
With this representation in mind, we address the four points of contention
between the examiner and the appellants. First, the examiner asserts, "layer 62 is
shown at a constant thickness lying over stratum 21 in Fig.16. . . ." (Examiner's Answer
at 17.) The appellants argue, "composite material (62) applied through the holes in
cover (41) does not satisfy the definition of 'layer.'" (Appeal Br. at 14.)
"[T]he Board must give claims their broadest reasonable construction. . . ." In re
Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Here, claim 5
specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "a layer of variable voltage material. .
. ." (Emphasis added.) The term "layer" is defined as "[a] single thickness, coating, or
stratum spread out or covering a surface." American Heritage Dictionary at 719 (copy
attached). Giving the claim its broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require
a thickness, coating, or stratum of variable voltage material spread out or covering a
surface.
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. The question of obviousness is
"based on underlying factual determinations including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007