Appeal No. 2004-0759
Application No. 09/363,038 Page 5
coating tank immediately downstream of the pickling tank excludes
any intermediate processing stages as appellant alleges to be
required by Oshima. This is so because that tank positioning
limitation is qualified by the language “substantially without
any intermediate processing stages” and claim 14 employs the open
“comprising” term.
During patent prosecution, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, as the claim language would have been read by one
of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification and
prior art. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320,
1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). It is proper to use the specification to
assist in interpreting the claims. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1053-56, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-30 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As
illustrated in appellant’s drawing figure 1 and as described in
the specification in the paragraph bridging pages 6 and 7
thereof, another optional stage (tank 34) and associated
equipment can be inserted between a second pickling tank (18) and
an electro-coating station (18) which stage may be used for
rinsing the steel. Also, see appealed claim 16, which depends
from claim 14. Given that disclosure in the specification and
giving the claim term “substantially” the broadest reasonable
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007