Ex Parte 4682857 et al - Page 39

                Appeal 2006-3235                                                                                
                Reexamination Control No. 90/006,696                                                            

           1    1024, 43 USPQ2d at 1548.  This holding has no relevance to Appellant’s                          
           2    Claim 11, which includes only one occurrence of “said liquid crystal.”                          
           3           Another argument by Appellant for treating the presumption of open-                      
           4    endedness as rebutted is that in contrast to the terms “method” and                             
           5    “process,” which inherently are open-ended, the term “liquid crystal” used in                   
           6    the preamble of the claim would have been understood to mean “a single                          
           7    liquid crystal.”  Br.  26.  We do not agree.  The phrase “liquid crystal”                       
           8    without being preceded by “a” is broad enough to refer to a single liquid                       
           9    crystal material or to a plurality of liquid crystal materials.  Moreover, even                 
          10    assuming for the sake of argument that “liquid crystal” should be construed                     
          11    to mean “a liquid crystal,” that phrase would read on a mixture of liquid                       
          12    crystal materials because “a” in a claim is customarily construed to mean                       
          13    “one or more.”  KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1357,                       
          14    55 USPQ2d 1835, 1839 (Fed. Cir. 2000                                                            
          15           Appellant also argues that the presumption has been rebutted because                     
          16    in contrast to open-ended method or apparatus claims, which are                                 
          17    characterized by having the term “comprises” followed by a list of steps or                     
          18    elements joined by the connective “and,” the term “comprises” in Claim 11                       
          19    is followed by a plurality of elements connected by repeated occurrences of                     
          20    the disjunctive “or,” a format Appellant contends conveys the meaning of                        
          21    “exclusive of others.”  Br. 26.  We do not agree.  Rather than implying                         
          22    exclusivity, the multiple uses of “or” would have been understood as simply                     
          23    making it clear to the reader before reaching the end of the claim that the                     
          24    liquid crystal materials are being recited in the alternative.  Appellant’s                     
          25    related contention that in order to be open-ended, the claim would have to                      
          26    use syntax such as “said liquid crystals comprise K18 and K24” (Br. 27) is                      

                                                      39                                                        

Page:  Previous  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013