Appeal 2007-0512
Application 10/310,744
detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor
invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.”)
In the present case, the preponderance of the evidence, namely,
Henegar, indicates that the term "channel" is used in this art (controlling the
flow of gases) to denote the use of enclosed structures, such as tubes.
Appellants have not offered credible evidence to the contrary. We accord
definitions taken from general, non-technical dictionaries, little weight as to
how those skilled in this art would have understood this term because it is
from the vantage of those skilled in the art that we must strive to understand
the claimed subject matter. Multiform Desiccants, Ind. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133
F.3d 1473, 1477, 45 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“It is the person
of ordinary skill in the field of the invention through whose eyes the claims
are construed. Such person is deemed to read the words used in the patent
documents with an understanding of their meaning in the field, and to have
knowledge of any special meaning and usage in the field.”) Accordingly,
the Examiner's rejection for lack of written description supporting the term
"channel" and its variants is AFFIRMED.
Remarks on provoking interferences
We take this opportunity to reinforce what has been said on many
other occasions and circumstances, including other decisions on appeal:
applicants seeking to provoke an interference with a patentee having claims
that use a different terminology are strongly advised to present claims that
they regard as interfering with the patentee's claims in the terminology of
their own application's disclosure, rather than copying the terminology and
claims of their would-be opponent. They must, of course, argue that their
-19-
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013