Appeal 2006-2846
Application 10/349,468
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). An
applicant’s specification is examined for the definition of any claim term
that would govern the Examiner’s interpretation of the particular claim term
at issue. Id.
Appellant does not specifically define “low density polyethylene
material” in the Specification. The Specification does, however, state that
the insulating layer is “preferably” comprised of a “polymer material” such
as “a low density polyethylene foam” or an “expanded polyethylene foam”
(Specification 6). From such disclosure, we construe these two phrases, “a
low density polyethylene foam” and “expanded polyethylene foam,” as at
least overlapping.
We are further in agreement with the Examiner’s broad, but
reasonable, construction of the phrase “a low density polyethylene material”
as a material made of polyethylene that has a low density (Answer 5). Based
on this claim construction, the Examiner reasonably determined Studen’s
“expanded polyethylene” satisfies Appellant’s claim limitation requiring that
the insulating layer is made of “a low density polyethylene material.”
As evidence of the propriety of the Examiner’s interpretation, the
Examiner provides the definition of “expanded polyethylene” from the
Plastics Processing Data Handbook, which defines the material as a “low
density . . . PE [polyethylene] homopolymer.” Appellant has not rebutted
this evidence (i.e., the Plastics Processing Data definition of “expanded
polyethylene”) provided by the Examiner.
The definition of “expanded polyethylene” provided by the Examiner
additionally supports the Examiner’s reasonable determination that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013