Appeal No. 2006-2314 Παγε 5
Application No. 10/856,225
forth in representative claim 1, does not read on Iversen’s
formation of slots. In this regard, appellant (brief, page 9)
maintains that Iversen does not introduce voids (slots) in the
media at a point way from an outer surface thereof. However, the
representative claim 1 method is not constrained by such a
limitation as to the void (slot) formation.1
Appellants further argue that the term “within”, as used in
representative claim 1, requires the formation of a void at a
location within the media that is at some distance from the
outside surface. We do not agree with appellants’ claim
construction.
During examination proceedings, claim terms are given their
broadest reasonable interpretation as they would be understood by
one of ordinary skill in the art when read in light of
appellants’ specification. See In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548,
218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In this regard, see numbered
paragraph 0042 at page 15 of appellants’ specification, wherein
1
1See page 9 of the brief and the amendment after final that
was not approved for entry by the examiner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007