Appeal No. 2006-1394
Application No. 09/885,188
Appellants argue that Cederblad discloses a netting with a set of extruded strands
in one direction and another set of strands in a direction perpendicular to the first set, thus
resulting in different tensions in the machine direction than the transverse direction but
having uniform tension in each direction (Brief,
page 4). Appellants further argue that there is no motivation to use the concept of strands
with different compositions from Cederblad, or the barrier layer of Beitz, and insert these
concepts into the elastomeric sheet of Melbye (Brief, pages 4-5; Reply Brief, page 2).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. In our analysis of the examiner’s
obviousness rejection, the claim must first be correctly construed to define the scope and
meaning of each contested limitation. See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457,
1460 n.3, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032, 1035 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1997). During examination
proceedings, the verbiage of the claims is given the broadest reasonable meaning of the
words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art, read in light of the specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Office should not import limitations from the specification
into the claims, but should only limit the claim based on an express disclaimer of a broader
definition. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1210-11 (Fed. Cir.
2004).
Giving the claim language of claim 1 on appeal its broadest reasonable
interpretation in its ordinary usage, we determine that the term “first elastomeric polymer”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007