Appeal No. 2003-0413
Application 09/148,262
OPINION
We reverse the rejection over Niederst and affirm the
rejection over Baumgartner. A rejection of claim 15 over
Baumgartner is entered under 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
The appellant indicates that the claims stand or fall in
three groups: 1) claims 1-15 and 19-25; 2) claim 26 and
3) claim 27 (brief, page 3). We therefore limit our discussion
to claims 26, 27 and one claim in the first group, i.e., claim 1,
which is the sole independent claim in that group. See In re
Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1566 n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed.
Cir. 1995); 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
Claim interpretation
It is proper to use the specification to interpret what
the appellant means by a word or phrase in a claim. See In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-56, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-30 (Fed.
Cir. 1997).
The appellant’s claim 1 recites that the article is “made of
plastic formulated to eliminate or reduce the need to include a
release agent”. The appellant’s specification indicates that the
term “plastic” includes plastics generally (page 6, lines 6-8),
and does not indicate that the invention involves formulating
the plastic itself in any nonconventional way. Thus, the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007