Appeal 2006-2120
Application 09/890,863
speaker” as an intended use, with these claims only reciting the woven fabric
per se, and thus determines that these claims are also anticipated by Weber
(id.).
Appellants argue that Weber does not teach all the elements of the
claims (Br. 5). Appellants argue that, given a reasonable interpretation of
the terms “diaphragm” and “loud-speaker,” the cut-resistant fabric of Weber
cannot be construed as reading on the claims, especially where claims 22
and 24 positively recite a loud-speaker and claims 21 and 23 positively
recite a diaphragm (Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 5-6). Appellants further argue that
the preamble of claims 19 and 20 has been relied upon during prosecution to
distinguish over the prior art and thus the preamble is a claim limitation (Br.
9; Reply Br. 6).
With regard to claims 19 and 20, we determine that the claims require
a woven fabric comprising fibers of PBO and “at least another … fiber
colored with dyes or pigments” (see claim 19 on appeal). The Examiner has
found that Weber discloses an Example of a woven fabric comprising fibers
of PBO and a dyed polyester (Answer 4; see Weber 8, Table 2, Glove 1).
Therefore, we determine that Weber discloses every element of claims 19
and 20 with the exception of the claim preamble “for loud-speaker
diaphragm using a woven fabric woven with a thread.” Accordingly, we
must determine the effect of this preamble language. The determination of
the effect of preamble language is but a part of the broader task of claim
construction. See Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink
Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 621, 34 USPQ2d 1816, 1820 (Fed. Cir.
1995).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007