Appeal No. 2006-0316
Application 10/428,930
We refer to the answer and to the brief and reply brief for a complete exposition of the
positions advanced by the examiner and appellants.
The issues in this appeal entail the interpretation of representative independent claims 2
and 9. We interpret these claims by giving the terms thereof the broadest reasonable
interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art in light of the written description in the specification, including the drawings,
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 Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1192-95, 29 USPQ2d 1845,
1848-50 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322
(Fed. Cir. 1989); see also In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 423-25, 9 USPQ2d 1649, 1650-51 (Fed.
Cir. 1988) (the claimed method was “disclosed in both words and drawings”).
The plain language of each of claims 2 and 9 encompasses any method of fabricating any
optical preform including at least any “operation of glazing the outside surface” thereof using “a
plasma torch” for “localized heating of the preform” by producing a plasma which “is
substantially free of injected silica particles,” the method further including at least “the step of
injecting” any gas, “which is substantially free of silica particles,”
between the plasma torch and said preform during said glazing operation in the area of
an outside surface of said preform on which said plasma impinges during said glazing
operation, to thereby reduced the power of said plasma in said area during said glazing
operation.
Claim 2 specifies that the “plasma torch includes means for injecting a gas which is substantially
free of silica particles between the plasma torch and said preform in the area of said preform to
be heated so as to reduce the power of said plasma in said area.” Claim 9 does not limit the
“plasma torch.” We consider the terms “including” and “includes” to be open-ended terms
2 We find from the final rejection mailed August 20, 2004 (e.g., pages 4 and 5), the brief (page
9) and the answer (pages 17 and 18), that the last two grounds include claims 10 and 13 and
claim 11, respectively, and thus, the failure to include these claims in the statement of the
grounds of rejection in the answer (pages 9 and 10) is harmless error.
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007