Appeal No. 2005-1608 Page 3
Application No. 10/424,327
OPINION
The focus of this appeal is on the limitation “pre-shrunk microporous membrane fabric”
and, particularly, on the term “pre-shrunk” (compare Briefs and Answer). Appellants argue that
the Examiner has failed to show that the combined teachings of Akasu and Anazawa teach or
suggest the claimed “pre-shrunk microporous membrane fabric” (Brief, p. 10). With regard to
the membrane fabric, Akasu suggests a microporous membrane fabric having hollow fibers of
polymethylpentene (PMP) with a warp yarn of, for instance, polypropylene polyolefin, for
forming the hollow fiber into a cord fabric (Akasu, col. 5, ll. 29-33; col. 6, ll. 3-8). Such is
acknowledged by Appellants in the specification (specification, p. 3). As such Akasu teaches or
suggests a contactor meeting all the limitations of claim 1 with the exception that Akasu does not
explicitly state that the fabric is pre-shrunk, although Akasu suggests forming the fabric from the
same materials as Appellant, i.e., PMP and polyolefin.
One of Appellants’ arguments is that “pre-shrunk” is a structural limitation. The
threshold question, therefore, is one of claim interpretation, specifically, the question is how
“pre-shrunk” places limits on the structure of the contactor of the claim. During prosecution,
claim terminology must be interpreted in conformance with the meaning conveyed by the
specification as we must give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation “in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Looking to the
specification for the meaning of “pre-shrunk” we note that such is discussed in the first
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007