Appeal No. 2005-1380
Application No. 09/944,314
Finally, we determine that “imparting” is not defined in the
specification, although appellants use the phrase “a texture is
imparted to the surface” and “imparting a pattern to the surface
or layers” (specification, page 2, ll. 14-15; page 3, ll. 5-8).
Appellants also use the word “creating” synonymously with
“imparting” (specification, page 2, ll. 8-9). Accordingly, we
turn to the extrinsic evidence of a dictionary definition wherein
“impart” means “to give or grant (what one has or of what one
has) or give rise to (in another) by contact, association or
influence.”2 This definition comports with the context of the
word “imparting” as used throughout the specification.
Accordingly, we adopt this meaning for the word “imparting.”
In view of our claim construction as discussed above, we
agree with the examiner that claim 1 on appeal is anticipated by
the admitted prior art, Walter, Bowser, Hoerkens, Yoest, or
Widmer. Appellants argue that the word “texture” and the phrase
“imparting a texture” appear nowhere in the excerpt of the prior
art on page 1, ll. 4-10, of the specification (Brief, page 5).
This argument is not persuasive since the “polishing phase” of
2See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 1131
(Gove, ed., G. & C. Merriam Co., Springfield, Mass., 1971).
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007