Ex Parte Shah et al - Page 11

                 Appeal 2007-2133                                                                                        
                 Application 10/790,502                                                                                  

                 (Br., e.g., 8), it is well settled that Applicants’ mere intent as to the scope of                      
                 the claimed invention does not so limit the scope of a claim which is                                   
                 otherwise definite when construed in light of the specification as it would be                          
                 interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.  In re Cormany, 476 F.2d 998,                          
                 1000-002, 177 USPQ 450, 451-53 (CCPA 1973).3                                                            
                        Furthermore, we consider the term “ambient temperature” to have its                              
                 common, art recognized meaning of “[t]he temperature of the surrounding                                 
                 medium, such as gas or liquid, which comes into contact with the                                        
                 apparatus.”4  Thus, in the context of the claim language and in light of the                            
                 Specification, the claim term “generally ambient temperature” would be that                             
                 temperature imparted by the infrared radiation to the coating applied to the                            
                 plate during the thermal curing process plus whatever temperature is                                    
                 imparted to the process by heat from other sources.                                                     
                        Accordingly, we determine that contrary to the Examiner’s position                               
                 (Answer 3-4), one of ordinary skill in the art would not find the term                                  
                 “generally ambient temperature” indefinite, see, e.g., In re Warmerdam,                                 

                                                                                                                        
                 3  Any conflict between Appellants’ intended invention and the actual scope                             
                 of the appealed claims should be also considered with respect to 35 U.S.C.                              
                 § 112, second paragraph, on the basis of whether appealed claims are                                    
                 “claiming the subject matter which applicant regards as his invention,” in                              
                 any further prosecution of the appealed claims subsequent to disposition of                             
                 this appeal.  See Cormany, 476 F.2d at 1000-002, 177 USPQ at, 451-53; see                               
                 also Zletz, 893 F.2d at 321-22, 13 USPQ2d at 1322 (citing In re Prater,                                 
                 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-405, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).                                              
                 4  See, e.g., ambient temperature, McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific                                 
                 and Technical Terms 75 (5th ed., Sybil P. Parker, ed., New York, McGraw-                                
                 Hill, Inc. 1994); ambient, The American Heritage Dictionary of The English                              
                 Language 56 (4th ed., Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000).                                          
                                                           11                                                            

Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013