Appeal No. 2006-0440
Application No. 10/291,933
the relevant art that the claimed invention encompasses a method
in which the outlet streams “flow together easily and
immediately over a relatively wide area of the substrate”
(emphasis added). (Specification at 9, lines 10-13.) While
Figures 1 and 2 appear to depict an embodiment in which the
outlet streams are individually and separately applied to the
substrate, such an embodiment is described as a preferred
embodiment. In this regard, the specification (page 21, lines
16-19) informs one skilled in the relevant art as follows:
While the above description contains many
specifics, these specifics should not be construed as
limitations on the scope of the invention, but merely
as exemplifications of preferred embodiments thereof.
In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1324, 72 USPQ2d at 1211 (“[T]his court
counsels the PTO to avoid the temptation to limit broad claim
terms solely on the basis of specification passages.”)
Having construed the disputed claim language, we turn to
the evidence. Like the appellants, Grimm describes a method for
coating a body (e.g., a substrate such as a pipe) comprising:
i) rotating the body (substrate) about an axis;
ii) ejecting a polyurethane reaction mixture through a
sheet die onto the rotating body, with the sheet die
being disposed at an angle α to the axis of rotation;
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007