Appeal 2006-1804
Application 09/825,609
Matsuda discloses a sanitary napkin provided with one or more barrier
sheets of “completely liquid repellent” material disposed between absorbent
layers 8, 8a (col. 1, ll. 26-35). The barrier sheet is expressly provided to
cause the liquid flowing through the first absorbent layer 8 to spread
laterally and longitudinally along the barrier sheet to utilize the absorbing
capacity of the absorbent layers more effectively (col. 2, ll. 18-26).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
While it is true that the claims in a patent application are to be given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification
during prosecution of a patent application (see, for example, In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)), it is also well
settled that terms in a claim should be construed as those skilled in the art
would construe them (see Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d
981, 986, 6 USPQ2d 1601, 1604 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Johnson, 558
F.2d 1008, 1016, 194 USPQ 187, 194 (CCPA 1977)). Further, the claims do
not stand alone but, rather, are part of a fully integrated written instrument
consisting principally of a specification that concludes with the claims and,
thus, must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327 (Fed.
Cir. 2005).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013