Appeal No. 95-2416
Application 07/892,484
of any prior art rejection, whether for anticipation or
obviousness, requires first that the claims have been correctly
construed to define the scope and meaning of the relevant
limitations. Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, ----, 43 USPQ2d
1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In proceedings before the Patent
and Trademark Office, claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and
claim language should be read in light of the specification as it
would be construed by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
With these legal principles in mind, we have reviewed
appellant’s claims in light of their specification. With respect
to the claim language in appealed claim 1 regarding a birdseed
selected from the group consisting of, inter alia, wheat,
appellant’s specification at page 7 indicates that the term
“birdseed” refers to any food or food additive or material that a
bird would eat and that wheat is a representative type of
birdseed. Thus, when reasonably construed, the claim language in
question covers any form of wheat, whether whole seed or wheat as
wheat bran.
Cartwright discloses a poultry food supplement, referred to
as “poultry-powder”, which comprises two ounces of wheat bran
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007