Appeal 2006-3235
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,696
1 2. Is Appellant correct to assert that the relevant field of endeavor is
2 limited to failure analysis?
3 3. Is Appellant correct to construe the claim as limited to failure
4 analysis?
5 4. Is Appellant correct to construe the claim as precluding the use of a
6 mixture of liquid crystal materials?
7 5. Does Aszodi satisfy every limitation of the claim?
8 ISSUE 1 – WHAT EFFECT, IF ANY, DOES THE EXPIRATION OF
9 THE ‘857 PATENT HAVE ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIM 11?
10
11 A. Facts
12 As noted above, the ‘857 patent expired seven weeks after the First
13 Action was mailed and before Appellant’s response thereto was filed.
14 B. Principles of Law
15 As explained in In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
16 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004):
17 During examination, “claims . . . are to be given their
18 broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
19 specification, and . . . claim language should be read in light of
20 the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
21 skill in the art.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 [15 USPQ2d
22 1566] (Fed. Cir. 1990); accord [In re] Bass, 314 F.3d [575,] 577
23 [65 USPQ2d 1156, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2002)] (“[T]he PTO must
24 apply the broadest reasonable meaning to the claim language,
25 taking into account any definitions presented in the
26 specification.”).
27 (Bracketed citations in USPQ2d version.) “[T]he claims themselves provide
28 substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms.” Phillips v.
29 AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
30 (en banc).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013