Appeal No. 96-2501
Application 08/177,243
to provide the 'written description of the invention' required
by § 112, first paragraph." Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d
1555, 1564, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Thus, in
those instances where a visual representation can flesh out
words, as in the present application, drawings can and should be
used like the written specification to provide evidence rele-
vant to claim interpretation and used to interpret what the
inventor intended by the claim terms. Applying these precepts to
the present application, we find that, when the claim language
under consideration is read in light of the present application
disclosure as such would be interpreted by the hypothetical
person possessing ordinary skill in the art, and particularly
when this language is viewed in light of the invention as seen
in Figures 7-9 of the application drawings, the claim language
requiring that "no mixing elements are in contact with one
another resulting in an open region of travel for fluids passing
through said conduit along its longitudinal axis," as recited in
appellant's independent claim 7 defines over the static mixing
apparatus of either Doom or Kao.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007