Appeal No. 2006-1887
Application No. 10/725,837
wholly) the entire length of arm portion 18 (answer, p. 6). We agree with the
examiner.
The term “substantially” has a plain meaning of “largely” or
“approximately” rather than “perfectly,” and is to be interpreted as such “unless
something in the prosecution history imposed the ‘clear and unmistakable
disclaimer’ needed for narrowing beyond this plain-language interpretation.”
Playtex Products Inc. v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 400 F.3d 901, 907, 73 USPQ2d
2010, 2015 (Fed. Cir. 2005). We find no such clear and unmistakable disclaimer in
the specification or prosecution history of the present application.
Figs. 1, 2A and 2B of the present application appear to illustrate the inner
sleeve 18 and outer thin fabric compression sleeve 40 (or inflatable compression
sleeve 50) having the same length, with the outer sleeve being slid over the entire
length of the inner sleeve. Fig. 6, in contrast, illustrates a different embodiment of
the outer sleeve wherein a shortened sleeve 40a, identical in construction to sleeve
40 but of a shorter length than sleeve 18, can be used with sleeve 18 (present
specification, p. 14). The present specification further informs us, at page 14, that
“a plurality of sleeves 40a, (which can be of various lengths equal or shorter than
sleeve 18), can be applied one over another at various locations on sleeve 18.”
There is nothing in the specification of the present application that clearly and
unmistakably limits claim 1 or claim 5 to the embodiment illustrated in Figs. 1, 2A
and 2B and we have been consistently advised by our reviewing court against
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013