Appeal No. 2005-2102
Application No. 10/077,346
Implicit in our review of the examiner’s anticipation analysis
is that the claim must first have been correctly construed to
define the scope and meaning of each contested limitation. See
Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032
(Fed. Cir. 1997). During examination proceedings, claims are given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification. See In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d
1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995). When a claim term is expressed in
general descriptive words, it typically will not be limited to a
preferred embodiment recited in the written description. See
Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ Por Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, (Fed.
Cir. 1998).
In view of these case law precedents, we give the introductory
language “bed liner” its broadest reasonable interpretation as
including any layer or laminate capable of lining a bed of a
vehicle, and we do not limit this term to the “typical” bed liner
with a structure including a bottom or floor, a front or cab wall,
and two side walls (specification, page 11, ¶ 0050). We similarly
give the broadest reasonable interpretation to “secured to” which
is construed as meaning that a layer is “over” or above the other
layer and may be directly or indirectly attached. See the
specification, ¶ 0006, where the multilayer molded liner includes a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007