Appeal No. 2002-1223
Application 09/435,455
second dimension, and a first dimension and second dimension”
(emphasis added). It follows that claim 10 encompasses an
embodiment wherein plural droplets are deflected in only one
direction and only one dimension or distance.
As previously indicated, application claims are to be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specification. Sneed, 710 F.2d at 1548, 218 USPQ at 388.
The above-discussed interpretations of appealed independent
claims 1 and 10 are indeed reasonable and consistent with the
appellant’s specification. This is because the appellant’s
specification expressly discloses that the droplets “are
deflected in either the horizontal X-direction or the vertical2
Y-direction, or both” (Specification, page 6; emphasis added).
It is apparent from this disclosure that the appellant’s method
2 The subject specification is not a model of clarity with
respect to the directions in which droplets are deflected viewed
from the perspective shown in figure 1 of the appellant’s
drawing. From this perspective, it is particularly unclear
what is meant by reference to “the vertical Y-direction.”
Specifically, it is unclear how the apparatus and method shown in
appellant’s figure 1 would somehow cause droplets to be deflected
in a direction vertical to substrate 12 of figure 1. The appel-
lant and the examiner should address this matter in any further
prosecution that may occur.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007