Appeal No. 2003-0992
Application 09/934,026
“through” the plastic material of the molded pallet, which is not disclosure of conductive
material “in” a plastic material as is required by claim 6. With regard to claim 11, the appellant
argues that Kuhns teaches a spike formed of conductive particles contained in a non-conductive
material, which is not a disclosure of “a mixture of non-conductive material and conductive
material” as claimed in claim 11.
We reject all of the appellant’s above-noted arguments.
The problem with the appellant’s positions is with the appellant’s unduly narrow reading
of the claim terms “mixture” and “in” which are just ordinary English words without any
specially made definition in the context of the appellant’s specification. The appellant does not
argue that it has taken the role of its own lexicographer and set forth special definitions for the
words “mixture” and “in” which are contrary to their ordinary usage in the English language. As
is pointed out by the examiner, the dictionary definition of “mixture” is simply any “combination
of contrasting elements” or “a portion of matter consisting of two or more components.” (Paper
No. 7, at 3). Also as is pointed out by the examiner, the dictionary definition of “in” is simply
“inclusion within space.” It is also well established that during patent examination, claim terms
are construed as broadly as they reasonably allow. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d
1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1404, 181 USPQ 641, 645 (CCPA
1974); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969). As is stated by the
Federal Circuit in In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983), in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007