Appeal 2006-2343
Application 10/246,620
Claim 1 is directed to a roll of punched adhesive tape having a base
film, an adhesive layer, and at least one punched hole. With regard to the
punched hole, the claim recites that the adhesive tape “is pierced with at
least one punched hole, which is made by punching the adhesive tape
through the base film and the adhesive layer, at or in the vicinity of said at
least one region where the adhesive tape contains said at least one of the
contaminants and defects.”
Two issues of claim interpretation emerge from the dispute between
the Examiner and Appellants. First, there is a question with regard to the
meaning of “punched hole” in claim 1. Second, there is a question as to
whether the claim requires the presence of contaminants and defects in the
roll of punched tape. To answer these questions, we keep in mind that the
claims are directed to a roll of punched tape, i.e., a product. Therefore, we
interpret “punched” and other functional language in the claim from the
viewpoint of how such language limits the structure of the end product roll
of tape. “[I]t is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the
recited process steps which must be established.” In re Brown, 459 F.2d
531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). We also keep in mind that
during examination, "claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim language
should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Absent claim
language carrying a narrow meaning, we only limit the claim based on the
specification when those sources expressly disclaim the broader definition.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007