Appeal No. 2005-0510
Application No. 09/883,435
may be afforded by the written description contained in the
specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The examiner states that appellants
have not defined “immediately adjacent” and thus the reaction
chambers of Kim “at least suggest the ‘immediately adjacent’
reaction chambers” as claimed (Answer, page 5). Appellants argue
that “immediately adjacent” has its ordinary dictionary definition,
meaning that there is no space between the reaction chambers except
for the common walls 5 which demarcate them from each other (Reply
Brief, page 2, citing the specification, page 24, ll. 12-14).
Implicit in our review of the examiner’s obviousness analysis
is that the claim must first have been correctly construed to
define the scope and meaning of each contested limitation. See
Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 1460 n.3, 43 USPQ2d 1030,
1032, 1035 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We disagree with the examiner
since we determine that appellants have defined the term
“immediately adjacent” from its use in the specification. We also
disagree with appellants’ reliance on a dictionary definition since
resort to a dictionary is unnecessary as a reasonable meaning of
the contested term is set forth in the specification. However,
we agree with appellants’ construction of this contested term as
meaning “with only a common wall between them” (Reply Brief, page
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007