Appeal 2006-1675
Application 10/415,798
interpretation that is consistent with the Specification. In re Morris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Additionally, a
Specification is examined for whatever enlightenment by way of definitions
or otherwise it may provide to construing claim language. Id. When
interpreting a claim, the Specification is usually the single best guide to the
meaning of disputed claim language. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
1303, 1315, 1321, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Further, we note that, on pages 7 through 8 of the Brief, Appellant
argues that the independent claim 9 limitation “a plurality of filament wires
(9, 9’) which are, at most, loosely twisted together” distinguishes over the
primary reference to Futahashi. In arguing this position, Appellant
“assume[s] that the filament wires 4a of Futahashi are conventional, tightly
twisted wires” (Br. 7). Appellant does not provide any information as to
what is considered “conventional, tightly twisted wires.” Thus, Appellant
has not fully explained why independent claim 9 distinguishes from the
primary reference to Futahashi. This information is necessary to adequately
interpret the appealed claims.
Thus, in response to this Remand, the Examiner must also require
Appellant to define what is meant by “conventional, tightly twisted wires”
(Br. 7) and to provide any available evidence which supports the definition.
IV. English Translation Needed
In the Answer, the Examiner maintains a § 103(a) rejection of
appealed claims 9-27 over the Japanese Patent No. 2001237052A to
Futahashi in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,824,996 to Kochman (Answer 2). In
so doing, the Examiner does not rely on a verified English language
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013