Appeal 2007-0169
Application 10/262,015
the broadest reasonable meaning in ordinary usage, taking into account the
written description found in the Specification. Applying this principle of
law to the present situation, we determine that the Examiner’s interpretation
is reasonable. Initially, we observe that the words in claim 1 do not
expressly limit the materials of the nanolaminate structure to those referred
to in paragraph 39 of Application 10/167,926. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1312, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2005), cert. denied sub.
nom., 126 S. Ct. 1332 (2006)(en banc)(our claim construction analysis
begins with the words of the claims themselves); In re Priest, 582 F.2d 33,
37, 199 USPQ 11, 15 (CCPA 1978)(“We have consistently held that no
‘applicant should have limitations of the specification read into a claim
where no express statement of the limitation is included in the claim.”).
Secondly, we observe that the Specification at page 1, paragraph 0003,
defines “nano” in terms of dimensions, sizes and scales. Consistent with this
written description, the Specification at page 1, paragraph 0002, indicates
that “[t] present invention relates to….electrophoretic devices with
nanometer-scale metallic components.” [Emphasis added] At paragraphs
0014 and 0015 of the Specification, the nanolaminate components are also
described as follows:
As pointed out above, it has been shown to synthesize
periodic arrays of metallic and insulating layers with
nanometer-scale precision….
….the layer thickness and/or material composition may vary
from layer to layer or section to section, whereby the
conductivity of the individual or layer section may be different.
The Appellants’ reference to paragraph 39 of a different patent application
(not incorporated into the present Specification) does not negate the explicit
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013