Appeal No. 2006-0715
Application No. 09/757,175
(Brief, page 11), the examiner has not presented any convincing reasoning why one of
ordinary skill in this art would have substituted a skin layer of Wilkie for the core layer of
Park. We note that the core layer of Wilkie is not opaque while the core layer of Park is
opaque (Brief, page 12; see Park, col. 3, ll. 20-36; and Wilkie, col. 3, ll. 57-59).
The examiner argues that appellants’ designation of one layer of a two-layer film
as a “core layer” and the other layer as a “skin layer” is merely “semantic” because
“physically their structural relation in a composite film is equivalent” (Answer, pages 5
and 6). We disagree. It is well settled that every limitation in a claim must be given
effect in order to determine what subject matter that claim defines. See In re Wilder,
429 F.2d 447, 450, 166 USPQ 545, 548 (CCPA 1970). It is also well settled that the
claimed words should be given the broadest reasonable meaning as commonly used as
they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account any
definitions or enlightenment from the specification. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005); and In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It was well understood in
this art that a layer designated as the “core layer” was generally the thickest layer and
gave the multilayered film its strength while the layer designated as the “skin layer” or
“cold seal receptive layer” was a thin outer layer used to facilitate sealing of the film (see
the admitted prior art on pages 1-6 of the specification; Park, col. 1, ll. 33-52; col. 2, ll.
58-64; col. 3, ll. 51-54; and col. 7, ll. 13-17; Wilkie, col. 1, ll. 41-47; col. 4, ll. 24-27; col.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007