Appeal No. 2005-1380
Application No. 09/944,314
14-17, of the specification, for “particulars of surface
texture.” On page 13-76, Marks’ teaches that surfaces that are
polished still exhibit a “texture,” and thus the broadest
reasonable interpretation of “texture” would include “smooth” as
well as “non-smooth” finishes. We also determine that “an
appearance closer to that of natural skin” is merely a subjective
result of the texture but does not define or limit what a
“texture” encompasses. See Marks’ at page 13-77 (as discussed by
the examiner in the Answer, page 4, last paragraph).
Although appellants’ “hearing instrument” is specifically
taught to be capable of remaining “within the ear canal”
(specification, page 2, ll. 8-10), the term “hearing instrument”
is not defined in the specification. Accordingly, we agree with
the examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of this
term encompasses any instrument or device that assists or aids in
hearing, regardless of whether the instrument can be inserted in
a human ear canal, and thus includes hearing aids, telephone
receivers, earphones, etc. We note that there is no express
disclaimer in the specification limiting the scope of this term,
nor any claim language limiting this term to instruments residing
in the ear canal.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007