Appeal No. 2006-1077
Application No.10/034,907
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie showing of obviousness because the
examiner’s analysis is based on an incorrect interpretation of the claim language. See
Panduit v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 774 F.2d 1082, 1093, 227 USPQ 337, 344 (Fed. Cir.
1985) (patentability begins with the legal question “what is the invention claimed?”).
During prosecution, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the specification. See In re American Academy Of Science Tech Center,
367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Claim language should
be read in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, id., keeping in mind that broad claim terms should not be limited solely on the
basis of specification passages, In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324, 72 USPQ2d 1209,
1211 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The claims recite a window covering panel formed of a fabric comprising acrylic
yarn,
the fiber content of said yarn being about 100 percent
pigmented acrylonitrile polymer… the weave density being
such as to provide openings… to provide human visual
perception through said panel and blocking the transmission
of ultraviolet light through said panel.
Claim 11; see claim 16. The examiner apparently interprets the claim language as
broadly encompassing “a porous woven fabric that has increased ultraviolet blocking.”
Examiner’s Answer, p. 4 (describing Edwards). In our view, the language of the claims,
when read in light of the specification, supports appellants’ contention that the claimed
invention is drawn to a fabric wherein the ultraviolet blocking is provided by the fiber
content and weave density.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007