Appeal No. 2006-0737
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,944
Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 4,847,448
4-5; Rejection, March 26, 2002, pages 2-3).
The Appellant does not challenge any of the above findings.
Rather, the sole issue argued on appeal is the examiner’s
interpretation of the term “deposited.” The appellant urges that
the term “depositing” allows for thinner thicknesses to be applied
and therefore greater cable flexibility to be obtained. The
appellant urges that the examiner has misconstrued the term to
include a metal-tape laminate which the appellant’s invention was
meant to replace. (Appeal Brief, pages 4-6).
If a metal-tape laminate or composite is excluded, JP ’321
would, it is urged by the Appellant, not render the claimed
invention obvious. (Reply Brief, page 8).
It is well established that claims undergoing re-examination
are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with
the specification. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ,
934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In this instance, the inquiry is
informed by the context of the entire patent under reexamination,
including the specification and the other claims. See Phillips v.
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1311-19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
We start with the plain language of the claims. The term
“deposited” appears only once in claim 1. Its contextual use in
the claims sheds no light on its meaning – “. . . a metal layer
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007