Appeal No. 2006-1117 Page 3
Application No. 10/461,308
that Rayburn describes every limitation of claim 1 on appeal within
the meaning of § 102(b)(Answer, pages 3 and 5). We agree.
Appellants argue that the Rayburn “web” is not a “layer” as
used in the present invention and disagree with the examiner’s
characterization that the films of Rayburn are laminated to form a
multilayer film (Brief, page 3).
It is implicit in our review of the examiner’s anticipation
analysis that the claim first must have been correctly construed to
define the meaning and scope of any contested limitations. See
Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032
(Fed. Cir. 1997). During prosecution before the examiner, we give
the claim language its broadest reasonable meaning in its ordinary
usage at it would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account any definitions or guidelines set
forth in the specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054,
44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claim 1 on appeal recites a “multilayer film,” which in its
ordinary usage simply means a film structure having two or more
layers, which is clearly the intended meaning since the body of
claim 1 requires “at least a first resin layer and a second resin
layer.” Claim 1 on appeal also uses the transitional term
“comprising” which means that the claim is open to include other
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007