Appeal 2006-3235
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,696
1 incorrect. Such a claim would be limited to a liquid crystal mixture
2 containing both K18 and K24.
3 While Appellant is correct to note (Br. 31-32) that the “Detailed
4 Description of the Invention” discusses the use of a single liquid crystal
5 material, namely, K-18, and does not mention using mixtures of liquid
6 crystal materials, those facts do not provide a sufficient basis for restricting
7 the claim to the use of one liquid crystal material at a time. As already
8 noted, it is improper to read limitations from examples given in the
9 specification into the claims, Constant, 848 F.2d at 1571, 7 USPQ2d at
10 1064, or to construe a claim as limited to a preferred or sole embodiment.
11 Conoco, 460 F.3d at 1357-58, 79 USPQ2d at 1807.
12 Finally, Appellant’s reliance (Br. 25-30) on a number of district court
13 decisions31 is misplaced because those decisions are not binding precedent
14 as to this Board. See SOP2.
15 D. Conclusion
16 Claim 11 does not preclude the use of a mixture of liquid crystal
17 materials.
18 ISSUE 5 -- DOES ASZODI SATISFY EVERY LIMITATION OF CLAIM 11?
19 A. Facts
20 1. Aszodi (Br. Ex. C; Reexam. Ex. 5) describes the use of nematic
21 liquid crystal materials to generate thermal maps of microcircuits and more
22 particularly the use of mixtures of two nematic liquid crystal materials for
31 Tulip Computers Internationali B.V. v. Dell Computer Corp.,
236 F.Supp.2d 364 (D. Del. 2002) (Br. 28-29); Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v.
Immunex Corp., 86 F.Supp.2d. 447 (D.N.J. 2000) (Br. 25); Novo Nordisk
A/S v. Eli Lilly and Co., No. 98-643 MMS, 1999 WL 1094213, at *12-13
(D. Del. Nov. 18, 1999) (Br. 29).
40
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013