Appeal No. 2005-1353
Application No. 09/851,839
of many layers would have the strain relief distributed over all
the layers (Brief, page 18; Reply Brief, page 4). The examiner
has not, on this record, introduced any evidence or technical
reasoning to the contrary. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in
this art would have reasonably believed that the first layer of
Pessa that “reads on” appellant’s claimed first layer would only
accommodate a small amount of the total strain (i.e., less than
100/32%). However, the phrase “substantially accommodating
strain” cannot be construed as broadly as interpreted by the
examiner to “read on” the small amounts of strain relief
accommodated by each layer of Pessa. Although not defined in the
specification, “substantially” must be given its ordinary meaning
“being that specified to a large degree or in the main” or
“relating to the main part of something.”2 This comports with
the context of the specification, which teaches only a first
condensed layer as the structure that will accommodate the strain
(specification, page 4, ll. 1-2). See Andrew Corp. v. Gabriel
Elecs., 847 F.2d 819, 821-22, 6 USPQ2d 2010, 2012-13 (Fed. Cir.
1988); Seattle Box Co. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731
F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
2See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 2280
(Gove, ed., G. & C. Merriam Co., Springfield, Mass., 1971).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007