Pro se appellant Tay loses at the CAFC
An undefined term in the application was given its broadest reasonable interpretation and anticipatory art was identified.
The term contact is not defined in the
’864 application. Based on our review of the ’864 application
and the prior art, we agree that the broadest reasonable
construction of contact encompasses the reflective
layer disclosed by the prior art ’053 application.
link: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/14-1415.Opinion.10-9-2014.1.PDF
The term contact is not defined in the
’864 application. Based on our review of the ’864 application
and the prior art, we agree that the broadest reasonable
construction of contact encompasses the reflective
layer disclosed by the prior art ’053 application.
link: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/14-1415.Opinion.10-9-2014.1.PDF
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 1:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home