Appeal No. 2005-2131
Application 10/000,254
within appealed claim 6 (answer, pages 13-14). The examiner finds that the Pace declaration is
insufficient because “liners as thin or thinner than 0.5 mils (0.0127 mm)” is more than twice as
thin as the range of “less than 0.032 mm (1.2 mils) specified in appealed claim 1 (answer, pages
14-15).
We find substantial evidence on this record supporting the examiner’s position. As an
initial matter, we interpret the term “micro-bridged cut” and the terms in the limitations
“temporary liner sheet consisting essentially of a sheet of less than 0.032mm in thickness” and
“temporary liner consists essentially of a polymer film of less than 0.025 mm in thickness,”
appearing in appealed claims 1 and 6, respectively, involved with the issues before us. We give
this claim language the broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage as they would
be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the written description in the
specification, unless another meaning is intended by appellants as established in the written
description of the specification, and without reading into the claims any limitation or particular
embodiment disclosed in the specification. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55,
44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320,
1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
We find that the term “micro-bridged cut” as it is used in context in appealed claim 1 and
in the specification, means that the border of the label is partially severed from the sheet or web,
that is, one or more uncut sections or “bridges” still attach(es) the border of the label to the sheet
or web (e.g., page 11, l. 1, to page 12, l. 6). Indeed, we fail to find in the specification a specific
definition of this term with respect to the amount of “the periphery of the intended outline or
border of the label . . . left uncut” or the “absolute dimensions of the bridges,” and will not read
into the appealed claims any illustrative embodiment or preferred ranges (e.g., page 11,
ll. 18-28).
With respect to the subject claim limitations, appellants contend that this language
“excludes the artificial use of ‘thin’ layers by adding other layers thereto” (see above p. 6). We
cannot agree. The term “consisting essentially of” is used in claim construction to indicate that
“the invention necessarily includes the listed ingredients and is open to unlisted ingredients that
do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of the invention.” PPG Indus., Inc. v.
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007