Appeal 2006-2776
Application 09/970,279
introduced reactants are combined. Appellants, in their Briefs, do not point
to any claim term definition in their Specification that warrants reading
claim 21 with as narrow a scope, with respect to the light source
configuration, as argued for. It is well established that embodiments
appearing in the specification will not be read into the claims. See Loctite
Corp. v. Ultraseal Ltd., 781 F.2d 861, 866-867, 228 USPQ 90, 93 (Fed. Cir.
1985), overruled on other grounds by Nobelpharma AB v. Implant
Innovations, Inc., 141 F.3d 1059, 46 USPQ 2d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
As another point, it is Appellants’ interpretation of Lemelson, along
with the subject matter required by representative claim 21, not the
Examiner’s interpretation thereof, which is in error. For example,
Appellants state that:
First, the Examiner points to column 15, lines 29-34 of
the Lemelson patent for the statement that “The two streams
may be formed of the same matter or combinations of matter or
different matter and caused to chemically react or combine,
such as in alloying, at or beyond the location where they
intersect and/or are reacted on by the beam or beams of
radiation directed thereagainst.” This sentence does not teach
or suggest the combination of two or more matter streams prior
to intersecting with a laser beam. However, this sentence
discusses the reaction taking place at or beyond where the
beam and reactants intersect. This sentence says nothing
about the relative position of the intersecting of the
radiation beam and the combination of the reactant
streams. It only discusses where the reaction takes place. The
Examiner’s reading of this sentence is a clear error of fact
since it simply does not state what the Examiner asserts that it
states.
Reply Br. 3.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013