Appeal No. 96-0079
Application No. 08/114,391
1984) and Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP Chems. Ltd., 78 F.3d 1575,
1578, 38 USPQ2d 1126, 1129 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Furthermore, in
proceedings before the PTO, claims in an application are to be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specification, and that claim language should be read in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218
USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In this case we find it necessary to construe the meaning of
the terminology "permanently affixed" as recited in claim 1 with
regard to the mounting of the feed hopper in the livestock
feeding structure. In the background of the invention
(specification, p. 1), the appellant describes the livestock
feeder wagon of his prior patent (Schoessow 4,258,663) as
including removable panels which can be secured to an inner
framework to provide a feed bunker. In the summary of the
invention (specification, p. 1), the appellant states that his
livestock feeding bunker in the present invention is constructed
with permanently mounted panels carried on a framework grating to
form a hopper. In the description of the invention
(specification, p. 4), the appellant explains that plates 16 form
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007