Appeal 2006-1306
Application 10/218,991
With regard to the rejection of claim 1 over Reed, we share
Appellants’ position that this claim is not anticipated by Reed.
A specification is examined for whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise it may provide to construing claim language. In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). An
applicant’s specification is usually the single best guide to the meaning of a
disputed term. Phillips v. AWH Corporation, 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 1321, 75
USPQ2d 1321, 1327, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2005). A careful reading of a
specification will usually indicate whether an applicant is setting out specific
examples for the purpose of enabling his invention or if applicant instead
intends for his claims and his embodiments in the specification to be strictly
coextensive. Id. (citing SciMed Life Systems v. Advanced Cardiovascular
Systems, 242 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Also, where an applicant
has disclaimed or disavowed scope of claim coverage, by using words or
expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction in his specification,
representing a clear disavowal of claim scope, such language will be used in
interpreting the claim scope. Id. 415 F.3d at 1319, 75 USPQ2d at 1331
(citing Texas Digital v. Telegenix, 308 F.3d 1193, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
In our view Appellants have clearly disclosed in their specification
that their claimed “molten polyol” cannot be construed as including polyol
syrups. Appellants define in their Specification that “conventional non-
molten coatings” include coating substances that are “not in a molten state”
but rather are “dissolved or dispersed in an aqueous media” (Specification
6). An example of a “conventional non-molten coating” is a “polyol syrup[
]” (Specification 6). Moreover, Appellants indicate in their Specification
that “molten polyols do not possess the high water content found in
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007