Appeal No. 2005-0146
Application No. 10/274,635
fabric be filled with the slurry in order to secure adequate
bonding of the web to the core layer (Brief, pages 2-3; Reply
Brief, page 1). Appellants further argue that, in contrast, the
present invention has polymeric fibrous liner sheets with pore
sizes small enough to prevent the gypsum slurry from penetrating
completely through the liner material (Brief, page 3). Finally,
appellants argue that the “plain meaning” of “cover” as used in the
claimed invention does not encompass a situation where the alleged
covering is subsumed by the thing being covered as in Miller
(Brief, page 3, citing Figures 2A, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of Miller).
Implicit in our review of the examiner’s anticipation analysis
is that the claim must first have been correctly construed to
define the scope and meaning of any contested limitation. See
Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032
(Fed. Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we must properly construe the
meaning and scope of “covered on both sides” as recited in claim 28
on appeal. We recognize that, in ex parte prosecution, claim terms
must be given their broadest reasonable meaning in their ordinary
usage as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, as
enlightened by any guidelines or definitions found in the
specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007