Appeal 2007-0486
Application 10/441,484
of a user, and handled. This interpretation is a broadest reasonable
construction of claim 11 that is consistent with Appellant’s Specification as
it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.1 Moreover, while
not binding on us, we note that this interpretation of the “means” limitation
of claim 11 as relating to a recited property of the towel is fairly consistent
with Appellant’s interpretation of this claim language as set forth in the
Reply Brief (Reply Br. 13).2
Turning to the Examiner’s separate anticipation rejections of claims
11 and 12 over Eng or Hoffman, we agree with the Examiner that each of
Eng and Hoffman describe articles of manufacture which both claims 11 and
12 read on.
Eng describes a pleated fabric useful in making articles of clothing
that includes a layer of body material including a plurality of folded stripes
(12) and a plurality of separate panels (13/14) delineated thereby (see Eng,
Figs 2-4 and col. 1, l. 71-col. 2, l. 19). We agree with the Examiner that the
1 During prosecution before the Examiner, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation as they would ordinarily be used and understood by
one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account any enlightenment or
definition found in the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Particular embodiments
appearing in the Specification will not be read into the claims when the
claim language is broader than such embodiments, and the Examiner should
only limit the claim based on an express disclaimer of a broader definition.
See Electro Med. Sys. S.A. v. Cooper Life Sciences Inc., 34 F.3d 1048, 1054,
32 USPQ2d 1017, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1994); and In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320,
1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1210-11 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
2 Indeed, a claim construction that would assign this “means” recitation an
interpretation that would require another element or structural feature as part
of the subject matter of claim 11and which would invoke the sixth paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. § 112 would not be consistent with Appellant’s Specification.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013