Appeal No. 2005-1856
Application No. 10/047,365
1014, 1019-20, 56 USPQ 379, 384 (CCPA 1942). As so interpreted,
the claim phrase “composed of” excludes a glass plate for the
reasons detailed below.
During examination proceedings, application claims are to be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specification. In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d
1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The examiner’s interpretation of
the independent claim on appeal, though certainly broad, is not
reasonable and consistent with the appellants’ specification.
This is because the specification disclosure makes it
unambiguously clear that a fundamental objective (i.e., a basic
and novel characteristic) of the appellants’ invention is to
avoid the problems of conventional solar modules having a front
side made of glass by replacing this glass front side with a
transparent polyurethane front side (e.g., see specification
pages 1-4). Given this unambiguous objective, it is simply
unreasonable and inconsistent with the subject specification to
interpret the claim requirement under consideration as being
anticipatorily satisfied by Vaverka whose solar module comprises
a front glass plate with a polyurethane layer therebehind.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007