Appeal 2007-2557
Application 10/094,866
note that “[a]lthough the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one that those
skilled in the art would reach.” In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358, 49
USPQ2d 1464, 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In my opinion, the majority’s
interpretation of claim 1 is not consistent with the one that those skilled in
the art would reach.
In my opinion, when all the terms in claim 1 are considered as a
whole8 the sequence defined by the dip, rise, dip, rise, loop, dip, rise, dip,
rise, loop patterned configuration becomes clear. Specifically, each segment
comprises a single strand of material that is configured to comprise a
repeating series of interconnected repeating W-shaped configurations. As if
to teach a child to write a “W”, you start at the top and dip to the bottom,
rise to the middle, dip again, and rise again. The single strand repeatedly
follows this pattern interconnecting each “W” with a “loop.” According to
claim 1, this is the pattern of the single strand that makes up each segment.
While claim 1 requires the interconnection bridges to interconnect
each segment in series, as claim 1 is written, the interconnection bridges do
not play a part in this “W-shaped” configuration of the single stranded
segments. This is where both the Examiner’s and majority’s analysis is
flawed as it applies to Appellant’s claim 1.
Finally, claim 1 requires that at least one of the plurality of
interconnection bridges comprises a plurality of narrowings at certain points
to permit the interconnection bridge to have greater flexibility when bending
8 See Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372, 73
USPQ2d 1641, 1648 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A claim construction that gives
meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do
so.”)
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013