Appeal No. 2003-0992
Application 09/934,026
proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, claims in an application are to be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See also
In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Therefore, Kuhn’s pallet material which is all non-conductive plastic except for one or
more spikes driven therethrough, either made of metal or conductive carbon particles within a
binder,2 is very much indeed (1) a “mixture of a non-conductive plastic and a conductive material
selected from the group consisting of carbon particles and carbon fibers” as is recited in claim 2;
and (2) “a mixture of a non-conductive material and conductive material” as is recited in claim
11. Nothing in claims 2 or 11 requires the overall material to have a homogenous composition or
a substantially uniform distribution of the conductive particles or material within the non-
conductive material. In that regard, note that even the appellant’s own preferred embodiments as
shown in the specification do not illustrate a homogenous material or a uniform distribution of
conductive particles or material within the rest of the non-conductive material, since the
appellant’s specification discloses a conductive film 84 superimposed or overlaid on a non-
conductive base structure 54 (Figure 4 and Specification at 5, lines 8-9). In that connection, note
that it would be unreasonable to regard the conductive film 84 itself, which constitutes only a
minor portion of the bed liner, as the material from which the bed liner is fabricated or made.
2 Kuhns discloses that its conductive particles can be carbon particles. (Column 4,
lines 24-25)
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007