Appeal 2007-2659
Application 09/940,541
meaning of each contested limitation. See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d
1454, 1460 n.3, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1035 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1997). During
examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. See In re Graves, 69 F.3d
1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The Examiner should
only limit the claim based on an express disclaimer of a broader definition.
See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1210-11 (Fed. Cir.
2004).
In view of the preceding legal principles, we determine that the
contested limitation of “covering” would have reasonably been interpreted
as being a separate sheet or an adhered or laminated sheet since Appellants’
Specification includes separate or laminated sheets with no express
disclaimer of any broad definition (see the Specification 8-9). Appellants
expressly admit that “covered” could be construed to include coverings that
are laminated to the containers (Br. 5). Appellants have not presented any
reasons why the specific embodiments of their Specification should be read
into the claims. However, even in view of our claim construction, the
Examiner has not established why the applied prior art would have rendered
obvious the claim limitation that “the tensile elongation of the battery
container covering is selected to cause the sheet to provide insulation
between the positive and negative electrodes of the battery when the
container is deformed” (see claim 1, last clause). Although Appellants
repeatedly argue this claim limitation (Br. 5; Reply Br. 1-2), the Examiner
has not specifically addressed this argument (Answer 5-7).
This last clause of claim 1 on appeal requires the battery container
covering, whether laminated or a separate sheet, to be capable of providing
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013