Appeal No. 2006-1692 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/068,243
“monolithic,” (only one layer), there is no support for the term
“homogenous” which could have more than one layer.
Appellant asserts (brief, page 4) that to ascertain the
meaning of a claim, the governing authority considers three
sources; i.e., the claims, the specification and the prosecution
history. It is asserted (id.) that dictionary definitions are
secondary and are not to trump the meaning from the
specification. The disclosure explains that the roller is a
solid piece of polymer with specific properties that are
expressed in the claims. It is argued (id.) that “[i]nstead of
interpreting “monolithic” and “homogenous” as having the same
meaning, e.g., in light of the specification and dictionary, the
Examiner opted to interpret “homogenous” in a manner consistent
with a dictionary definition, a secondary source, that is
incongruous with the disclosure, primary source”. Appellant
points out that claim 6 does not recite “homogenous thickness,”
but rather recites “homogenous roller.” It is argued (brief,
pages 5 and 6) that “[i]nterpreting the term homogenous in light
of the specification results in a definition that is synonymous
with monolithic; a ‘roller of the same nature, solid and uniform
(definitions of monolithic and homogenous merged to show
consistent meaning).”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007