Ex Parte Sagnard et al - Page 6



           Appeal No. 2007-0484                                                        6            
           that the slit not extend through to the opposing face.  While this uncertainty           
           arguably makes the claim indefinite, we do not have that rejection before us.            
                 The claimed slit is a narrow opening in the largest face (or one of the set of     
           largest faces) of the building panel that crosses the entirety of that face and extends  
           below the face, but not through to the opposite face of the panel.  We understand        
           "sever" to simply reinforce the idea that the slit traverses the primary face.23  We     
           do not construe "slit" to require any particular geometry other than narrowness.         
                 Dow further argues24 that the slit must "facilitate bending a building panel       
           into a non-planar configuration for insertion into a cavity."  This functional           
           language does not appear in the claim and is not required for the claim to make          
           sense.  Dow's argument makes sense only if this functional language can be read as       
           defining "slit".  Clarity, deliberateness, and precision are, however, the quid pro      
           quo of specification lexicography so those of ordinary skill will have clear notice.25   
           Dow controls the language of its specification and its claims.  If Dow wishes            
           either to be read a particular way, Dow has both the means and the responsibility to     
           ensure they are clearly drafted to reflect Dow's intended meaning.26  We note that       
           an alternate reading of the cited portion of Dow's specification is that a traversing    
           slit in a deformable panel will inherently facilitate bending of the panel.              

                                                                                                   
           23 See Ex parte Ionescu, 222 USPQ 537, 540 (Bd. App. 1984) (a claim that can be          
           construed can be examined for that construction).                                        
           24 AB at 8, citing the specification, page 13:1-5.                                       
           25 In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994).             
           26 The applicant has the responsibility for drafting the claim to provide notice of      
           precisely what the applicant means.  In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44               
           USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997).  This responsibility is particularly important       
           before the Office when the claim may usually be amended to avoid uncertainty.            



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013