Appeal 2007-1266
Application 10/125,204
the invention. In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 958, 189 USPQ 149, 151
(CCPA 1976).
Appellants argue that one skilled in the art of sample molding
mounting processes would understand the term “rigid face seal” as referring
to a face seal made of a material suitable to withstand the operational
environment of a metallographic sample mounting press. (Br. 9).
Appellants direct us to paragraph [0021] of the Specification which states:
The body of the mold cavity and the cap piece forming the face
seal can be made of metals typically used for sample mounting
presses, such as stainless steel, aluminum alloys, or the like.
Appellants point out that the Specification teaches that sample mounting
presses encounter relatively large pressures where a metallographic sample
is encapsulated with internal mold pressure of from about 2,000 psi to 4,200
psi at a temperature of about 300°F. (Br. 8). Appellants further rely on the
dictionary definition of “rigid” as meaning "deficient in or devoid of
flexibility." (Br. 9) (citing Exhibit A, Webster Ninth New Collegiate
Dictionary.)
We find Appellants’ arguments persuasive in establishing that the
Specification provides an appropriate standard for determining the degree of
rigidity required for the face seal component of the claimed metallographic
sample mounting press. See Seatttle Box Co., Inc. v. Industrial Crafting &
Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 573-74 (Fed. Cir.
1984)(“When a word of degree is used the district court must determine
whether the patent’s specification provides some standard for measuring that
degree.”). In particular, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand from the Specification that a “rigid face seal” is one which is
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013