Appeal No. 2005-1380
Application No. 09/944,314
any definitions or guidelines for the term “texture.” Appellants
teach that the shell of the hearing instrument is provided with a
“textured finish” (abstract). Appellants disclose that the
texture “may be a series of lines 50, equally or unequally spaced
(Figures 3 and 4), or a plurality of shapes (e.g., ovals and
circles in Figures 5 and 6, respectively), or some other pattern,
predetermined or randomly generated.” Specification, page 5, ll.
1-6. Therefore we need not consult any extrinsic evidence, as
appellants’ specification clearly defines “textured” as a series
of lines or shapes in any order or spacing that lie on a surface
of the hearing instrument shell. “[T]he specification is always
highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually it
is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a
disputed term.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d at 1315,
75 USPQ2d at 1327 (internal quotations omitted).
We note that the specific embodiments from the specification
that the texture may also have the property or characteristic of
being “non-smooth” (specification, page 2, l. 8), or that the
textured finish produces “an appearance closer to that of natural
skin” (specification, page 2, ll. 10-11), have not been imported
into claim 1 on appeal (see claim 3 on appeal). Appellants cite
Marks’ Standard Handbook for Mech. Eng’rs (Marks’) on page 6, ll.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007