Appeal No. 94-2612
Application 07/759,478
composition. See In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551-52, 190 USPQ5
461, 463 (CCPA 1976); Ex parte Boukidis, 154 USPQ 444 (Bd.
App. 1966); In re DeLajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 873-74, 143 USPQ
256, 258 (CCPA 1964); In re Janakirama-Rao, 317 F.2d 951, 954,
137 USPQ 893, 896 (CCPA 1963); and Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ
448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948). To determine the ingredients
excluded by the language “consisting essentially of”, the
claim must be read in light of the specification. See In re
Herz, 537 F.2d at 551, 190 USPQ at 463, and In re Janakirama-
Rao, 317 F.2d at 954, 137 USPQ at 896. In this regard, we
emphasize that, from our perspective, it is an applicant’s
burden to establish that an ingredient included in a prior art
composition is excluded by “consisting essentially of”
language. See In re Herz, 537 F.2d at 551-52, 190 USPQ at
463, and Ex parte Hoffman, 12 USPQ2d at 1064.
The phrase “consisting essentially of” does not
necessarily limit the claims to exclude other things when the
specification clearly indicates that other constituents may be
5 The term “consisting essentially of” is similarly applied to process claims.
See Ex parte Hoffman, 12 USPQ2d 1061, 1063-64 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1989).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007