Appeal No. 94-2818
Application 07/834,771
reasons set forth by the examiner in the answer. We add the
following remarks primarily for emphasis.
OPINION
The first step in determining the differences between the
prior art and the claimed subject matter is to ascertain or
interpret the scope of the claimed language. It is well 4
settled that, during patent prosecution, claims must be
interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. See
In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed.
Cir. 1989).
The method of appealed claim 1 requires three steps,
namely, providing a flexible bag, filling the bag with water,
and metering the liquid culture medium from the bag using a
feed line leading from the bag into the waste material over
time to degrade the waste material, with the liquid culture
of the answer).
4 See Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), and the Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), §2141.02, 6th ed. Rev. 3, July 1997.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007