Appeal 2006-2949
Application 10/012,768
material having at least one irregular distortion that is the same as if it were
generated by process resulting in the hydraulic fracture of the thread element
to separate it from a bonded fibrous material while the bonded material is
suspended in a liquid. See generally, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227
USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
We find no specific definition for the claim term “irregular distortion”
as it pertains to “generated by hydraulic fracture.” Indeed, Appellants
describe “irregular distortions” in the written description in the specification
as “may be in the form of bends[,] . . . flattened segments[,] . . . expanded
segments[,] . . . and combinations thereof” of thread elements (specification,
e.g., 3:14-17, and 14:18-20). According to Appellants, the “deformations
and distortions” may be generated by “‘metal to fiber’ interaction,”
“hydraulic fragmentation” and “by tearing, slicing and breaking of fiber
and/or filaments” (id., e.g., 13:15-21). We find no disclosure in the written
description in the specification which distinguishes the “irregular distortion
generated by hydraulic fracture” from “irregular distortion” generated by
“‘metal to fiber’ interaction” and by tearing, slicing and/or breaking fibers
and filaments. Thus, in the absence of a specific definition for the claim
terms in the written description in the specification, we interpret the
language of the “irregular distortion generated by hydraulic fracture” in light
of that disclosure to encompass any irregular distortion that is the same as if
it were generated in any manner during the fracturing of thread elements in a
bonded fibrous material suspended in a liquid. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir.
2004); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007