Appeal 2007-1800
Application 10/206,235
In this latter regard, we observe that claim 1 inconsistently defines the
uppermost value of the minimum thickness. More specifically, in the afore-
quoted recitation, this uppermost value is defined as 0.7 mm whereas, in the
last two lines of claim 1, the uppermost value is defined as 17% of tempered
glass thickness (t) which is equal to an uppermost value of 0.485 (i.e., 17%
of a 3.5 mm thickness (t) ). When asked at the oral hearing to resolve this
inconsistency, Appellants’ representative indicated claim 1 should be
construed as requiring minimum thicknesses that satisfy all claim
requirements which therefore would include a range from 0.15 to 0.485 mm.
For purposes of resolving the § 103 issues advanced by the Appellants
and the Examiner on this appeal, we will interpret claim 1 in the manners
indicated by Appellants’ representative at the oral hearing.1
Principles of Law and Analysis
As recently stated by the Supreme Court, “if a technique has been
used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the
technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”
KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396
(2007).
1 In any further prosecution that may occur, the Examiner and the Appellants
should address and resolve whether this claim interpretation is the broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification disclosure. See
In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827,
1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Philips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75
USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013