Appeal 2007-3962
Application 10/005,846
Structural Perspective” by Kesting. The Examiner contends that Appellants
have not defined “dry stretched” in the Specification, nor does Kesting
provide a definition and, therefore, the claim 9 encompasses membranes
made using the biaxial stretching step of Kondo (Answer 6).
The issue on appeal arising from the contentions of Appellants and the
Examiner is: Does “dry stretched microporous sheet” as used in claim 9
refer to a sheet different in structure from the plasticizer extracted, biaxial
stretched sheet of Kondo? We answer in the affirmative.
Appellants have provided evidence that “dry stretching” has a specific
meaning in the art of microporous membrane manufacture synomous with
the Celgard® process of Kesting (Specification 2:1-9), and Appellants use
that phrase to differentiate from phase inversion or extraction methods of
forming the pores within the sheet (Specification 4: 17-21).
“[I]t is fundamental that claims are to be construed in the light of the
specifications and both are to be read with a view to ascertaining the
invention.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 49, 86 S. Ct. 708, 15
L.Ed.2d 572 (1966). While claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
meaning, that meaning is the meaning is determined “in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.”
See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d
1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Even if there is no explicit definition of the
terms in the specification, it would be unreasonable to ignore any
interpretive guidance afforded by the Specification. See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054-055, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013