Appeal 2006-3219
Application 10/122,270
F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Priest, 582
F.2d 33, 37, 199 USPQ 11, 15 (CCPA 1978).; compare University of
California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1573, 43 USPQ2d 1398,
1409-10 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(in a claim encompassing a “cDNA having” an
unspecified sequence, “[t]he word ‘having’ still permitted inclusion of other
moieties.”) with In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552,1555,1558, 34 USPQ2d 1210,
1212, 1215 (claims 5 and 7 to a “cDNA . . . having the “ recited sequence
defined “the precise cDNA molecules”).
We determine that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
from the Specification that the molding process would involve heating and
compression resulting in a unitary, laminated structure (see Specification,
e.g., 4:26 to 5:4, 6:10-12, 9:6-10; see also Yamada, e.g., col. 4, ll. 44-59, and
col. 6, ll. 55-66). We find no disclosure of the claim term “structures” in the
Specification; only the disclosure that the “woven mat” enters into the
molded laminate, forming a layer thereof, and the claim language also
describes “structures” as formed from “woven mat” which is one of the
blanks that are molded. Thus, we determine that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the term “structure” in the context of the claim language
and the disclosure in the Specification is a layer of the molded laminated
part. See Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d at 1027; Zletz, 893 F.2d
at 321-22, 13 USPQ2d at 1322; Priest, 582 F.2d at 37, 199 USPQ at 15.
Indeed, contrary to Appellant’s Summary Of Claimed Subject Matter
encompassed by claim 14 (Supp. Br. 2-3), there is no “two thermoplastic
reinforced fiber structures (24,30)” identified in the final molded part
illustrated in Fig. 6 or in Fig. 9; the numerals 24,30 referring to layers or
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013