Appeal No. 94-2818
Application 07/834,771
maintained at ambient temperatures during the metering.5
As noted by the examiner (answer, page 10), the claims do
not exclude method steps such as found in Miller where
flushing or pretreatment occurs since the method of claim 1
recites ?comprising?. The term ?comprising? is a term of art
used in claim language which means that the claimed elements
or steps are essential, but other elements or steps may be
added and be within the scope of the claims. See Genentech
Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613
(Fed. Cir. 1997); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App.
1948). As stated by our reviewing court in In re Herz : 6
It is axiomatic that claims are given their
broadest reasonable construction consistent
with the specification. [Citation omitted.]
This complements the statutory requirement
for particularity and distinctness (35 USC
112, second paragraph), so that an
applicant who has not clearly limited his
claims is in a weak position to assert a
narrow construction.
Appellants’ arguments are all directed to a narrow
5 Appellants admit that the third step of the method of claim 1 is well known in
the art, i.e., ?waste degradation accomplished through use of metering a liquid bioactive
solution into the waste trap is known.? (brief, page 14).
6537 F.2d 549, 551-52, 190 USPQ 461, 463 (CCPA 1976).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007