Appeal No. 2006-1014
Application No. 10/255,081
Appellants indicate that claims 1-4 and 7-9 stand together
as one group. (Brief, page 5). Also, Appellants have not
separately argued the claims in their brief. As such, we will
focus on independent claim 1 (which is the broadest claim on
appeal) as the representative claim on which to render our
decision.
Appellants argue that Suzuki does not teach either a “high-
rigidity brittle fracture portion” or a “low-rigidity ductile
fracture portion” as required by claim 1. (Brief, page 7). In
order to determine if Suzuki teaches these claim features, we
must first determine the meaning and scope of the claim
language. We look to the specification for any claim term
definitions to be used in construing the claim. Phillips v. AWH
Corporation, 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed.
Cir. 2005). We note that Appellants’ specification defines the
“high-rigidity” and “low- rigidity” claim phrases as follows:
As used herein, “high-rigidity brittle fracture
portion” can be defined as a component that has a
large repulsive energy at unit deformation (load [N]
versus deformation) and that undergoes fracture at
small deformation, and “low-rigidity ductile fracture
portion” can be defined as a component that has a
small repulsive energy at unit deformation (load [N]
versus deformation) and that undergoes fracture at
high deformation. Specification, page 3, lines 9-17.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007