Appeal No. 2005-2487
Application 08/900,254
9. Yamamoto discloses uniformly dispersing the fiber blend (column 6, lines 43-49).
10. Yamamoto discloses a sheet having satisfactory properties such air permeability,
tensile strength, and filtering property (column 4, lines 58-62 and column 10, lines 62-
68) (see table 4).
11. Yamamoto discloses a process (examples 13-14) which does not describe
reheating the sheet after calendering. (column 8, see also table 3).
12. Naruo describes that pleating a filter material has a distinct advantage in increasing
effective filtration area (Naruo, column 1, lines 23-39).
13. Norton discloses the use of meshed corrugating rolls to increase filtering capacity of
filter paper (col. 1, lines 20-25 and 59-60).
IV. Claim Interpretation
We initially determine what this complex claim covers. “It is the claims that
measure the invention.” SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp of America., 775 F.2d 1107,
1121, 227 USPQ 577, 585 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In examining a patent claim, the PTO must apply the broadest reasonable
meaning to the claim language, taking into account any definitions presented in the
specification. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir.
1984). Words in a claim are to be given their ordinary and accustomed meaning unless
the inventor chose to be his own lexicographer in the specification. Lantech, Inc. v.
Keip Mach. Co., 32 F.3d 542, 547, 31 USPQ2d 1666, 1670 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007