CORREA et al. V. ROBERTS et al. - Page 13





               Interference No. 105,019                                                                                                
               Correa v. Roberts                                                                                                       
                       At oral argument on July 31, 2003, the motions panel asked counsel for Roberts just what                        
               structural feature is required by the recitation of "sanitary napkiW' in the preamble, which is not                     
               found in the Lawson '278 reference. Counsel for Roberts' response was that a sanitary napkin                            
               must have the ability to be placed in an undergarment and have flaps that wrap around the edges                         
               of the undergarment, while also having cuffs that stand up from the top sheet (Oral Argument                            
               Transcript at 32). The problem is that the assertion of Roberts' counsel is not supported by                            
               sufficient evidence in the record. Party Roberts did not submit the testimony of any technical                          
               witness which represents that a "sanitary napkin" is a term of art understood by one with ordinary                      
               skill as necessarily having flaps which wrap around the edges of an undergarment.                                       
                       The specification of Roberts does not define "sanitary napkin," and as noted above, the                         
               dictionary definition of "sanitary napkin" is simply an absorbent pad for wear by women during                          
               menstruation to absorb the uterine flow. Furthermore, in proceedings before the USPTO, claim                            
               terms in applications are properly construed according to their broadest reasonable interpretation                      
               not inconsistent with the specification. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571-72, 222 USPQ                               
               934, 936-937 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544,1548, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir.                            
               1983). Here, the broadest reasonable interpretation for a "sanitary napkin" not inconsistent with                       
               the specification is just what the dictionary defines, "an absorbent pad for wear by women during                       
               menstruation to absorb the uterine flow," not the narrow construction urged by party Roberts                            
               without justification, i.e., that it must have the specific kind of flaps having a structure capable of                 
               wrapping around the edges of the undergarment of the wear. Moreover, if the issue is mere                               
               "capability," as counsel for Roberts suggested during oral argument, we find that the flaps of                          

                                                              - 13 -                                                                   







Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007