Appeal 2007-2026
Application 10/131,772
the Examiner (id.), the structures in Figure 23 are not perfect “I” shapes
because they have curvature and gradual tapering that join the wider ends to
the narrow middle. We therefore agree with the Examiner that it is
reasonable to interpret “I shaped” to encompass any structure that is
generally shaped like an “I.”
Appellants’ annotated version of Ehr’s Figure 16 is reproduced below:
The annotated figure shows an enlarged section of Ehr’s cell structure, with
three cells shaded and labeled “A”, “B”, and “C”. The figure shows that the
wider end portions of cell “A” extend away from both sides of the narrower
portion of the cell that connects the two ends. Moreover, cell “A” has the
general appearance of a capital letter “I.” Thus, Appellants’ arguments to
the contrary notwithstanding, we agree with the Examiner that at least cell
“A” has the general shape of an “I.”
“Absent claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the PTO should
only limit the claim based on the specification or prosecution history when
those sources expressly disclaim the broader definition.” In re Bigio, 381
F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (Fed Cir. 2004). Thus, we also
agree with the Examiner that it would be improper to limit claim 37 only to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013