Appeal 2007-1939
Application 10/277,563
filed no reply responding to the examiner's construction, we limit ourselves
to reviewing the reasonableness of these constructions.
The construction of packet element and of fuel delivery conduit simply
summarizes the claim language. The examiner oversimplifies the
construction of frame element edge, however. The claim limitation is "a
frame element edge-supporting the solid oxide sheet sections". Thus, it is
not an edge, but rather a frame that supports an edge that must be present in
the prior art. This construction misstep is harmless in view of the way the
examiner actually applies the art. Finally, the electrically conductive means
limitation is presumed to be a means-plus-function limitation,7 which
requires resort to the specification for a determination of corresponding
structure and equivalents.8 Corning points to certain paragraphs in the
specification in support of this limitation.9 Of particular relevance in this
case is the disclosure that the conductors could be "wire, ribbon, felt or
mesh".10
Ketcham's disclosure
The examiner relies on a patent11 (Ketcham) as evidence of
anticipation. The Ketcham patent has the same assignee as, and two
must either show why the broader construction is unreasonable or amend the
claim to state expressly the scope intended).
7 Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354, 1362,
72 USPQ2d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (explaining that the court has
"seldom held" the presumption to have been overcome).
8 35 U.S.C. § 112.
9 Br. 3.
10 Spec. ¶0128.
11 T.D. Ketcham, W.R. Powell, R.L. Stewart, and Dell J. St. Julien, "Flexible
inorganic electrolyte fuel cell design", U.S. Patent 6,045,935 (granted
4 April 2000). Ketcham and St. Julien are the common inventors.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013