Appeal No. 2006-0111
Application 09/900,746
(Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023,
1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “[T]he specification is always highly
relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is
dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a
disputed term.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d at 1315, 75 USPQ2d
at 1327 (internal quotations omitted). Of course, limitations from
the specification should not be imported into the claims, even if
the preferred embodiment is the only embodiment described, absent
clear disclaimer in the specification. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci.
Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir.
2004); and Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182,
1186-87, 48 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1998). As correctly argued
by the examiner (Answer, paragraph bridging pages 11-12),
appellants’ “definition” of breaking is merely the description of
one action where pulling back the web “breaks” the web (see the
specification, page 24, ll. 14-30). Appellants disclose “breaking
the wet web” which may comprise perforating the web and then making
the break along the line of perforation (specification, page 3, ll.
20-27). Appellants further teach that the “perforations are
preferably in the cross direction (CD) of the web; that is in the
plane of the web perpendicular to the direction of movement, or the
machine direction (MD)” (specification, page 10, ll. 18-20,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007