Appeal No. 2006-1352
Application 10/250,683
Our review of the examiner’s application of prior art to claims 1 and 10 requires that we
interpret the claims by giving the terms thereof the broadest reasonable interpretation in their
ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light
of the written description in the specification unless another meaning is intended by appellants as
established therein, and without reading into the claims any disclosed limitation or particular
embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d
1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027
(Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
The language of claim 1 specifies a “heat dissipating member” which is of any form that
can be disposed in any manner between an electronic component that generates heat at any
temperature higher than “room temperature” and a heat dissipating component. We interpret the
language specifying the location in which the heat dissipating member is disposed as a statement
of intended use. In this respect, the language specifies that the heat dissipating member must be
susceptible to such disposition, and has the properties of being “non-fluid” at “room
temperature” but “acquires a low viscosity, softens or melts” to any extent that will “fluidize at
least a surface” of any area to any extent, at “a temperature higher than room temperature” when
any manner of “electronic component” is in operation, and thus “fill between” the components
“without leaving any substantial voids” at some point in time. These requirements must be given
weight as limitations which characterize the claimed heat dissipating member in order to give
meaning to the claim and properly define the invention. See generally In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1262, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1781 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing Perkin-Elmer Corp. v.
Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 896, 221 USPQ 669, 675 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S.
857[, 225 USPQ 792] (1984)); Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d
1251, 1257, 9 USPQ2d 1962, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1989), In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754-55,
4 USPQ2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
In considering these limitations, we do not find the term “room temperature” defined in
the specification, and thus consider this temperature to be generally in the range of 68°F to 75°F,
which is 20°C to 23.9°C. There is also no definition or other disclosure which describes a
“temperature higher than room temperature” at which the electronic component operates and
thus, to which the heat dissipating member would be subjected when the unspecified “electronic
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007