Appeal No. 2006-0894 Page 6
Application No. 10/412,840
liner/substrate reads on the Mylar substrate of Erickson for
reasons related by the examiner in the answer. We note that
appellants have not furnished any persuasive evidence to
substantiate their argument that the Mylar film substrate of
Erickson would not be read on by the low moisture content
liner/substrate of appellants’ claim 1. In this regard, we give
the relative claim term “low” the broadest reasonable
construction that the term convey and which is consistent with
appellants’ specification and as it would have been understood by
one of ordinary skill in the art given the context in which that
claim term is used. See In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218
USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Here, the claim term “low
moisture content” has not been defined in appellants’
specification in a manner so as to place any specific upper
limits on the moisture content of a substrate/liner, such that
the claimed liner/substrate would not be inclusive of
substrates/liners having the relatively low moisture levels
associated with the Mylar substrate of Erickson. This is
especially so given the limited moisture absorption properties
intrinsic to Mylar that is fairly asserted by the examiner (see,
e.g., answer, page 6) as a characteristic of that disclosed film
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007