Tuesday, October 14, 2014

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


Post a Comment

<< Home