Appeal No. 2002-1223
Application 09/435,455
process under which at least some of the drops [i.e., liquid
metal droplets] would not strike the substrate, including, for
instance, prior art processes in which some of the drops strike
on top of already solidified drops” (Answer, page 4). However,
this contention lacks persuasive merit. It is well settled that,
in proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office, 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). Here,
the examiner has not even attempted to carry his burden of
establishing that his claim interpretation regarding the appel-
lant’s catching step is reasonable and consistent with the
specification. Moreover, our own study of the appellant’s
specification (e.g., see the second full paragraph on specifi-
cation, page 7) persuades us that it would be unreasonable and
inconsistent with this specification to construe, as the examiner
has done, the here-claimed catching step as encompassing the step
of depositing a liquid metal droplet on top of a previously
deposited and solidified droplet.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007