Appeal No. 95-1360
Application No. 08/134,002
See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322
(Fed. Cir. 1989) (“During patent examination the pending
claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms
reasonably allow. When the applicant states the meaning that
the claim terms are intended to have, the claims are examined
with that meaning, in order to achieve a complete exploration
of the applicant’s invention and its relation to the prior
art.”).
Appellants take the position that “rapid hardening
hydraulic cement” is a term of art. Appellants argue that
they “have pointed out the differences between RHHC [rapid
hardening hydraulic cement] and ordinary Portland cement.
Page 2, lines 15-17 and lines 32 to 36 of the specification
defines RHHC” (Brief, p. 5). Appellants’ specification
discloses that rapid hardening cement, by definition, “is
based on Calcium sulphoaluminate compound” (Specification, p.
2, lines 32-33). Moreover, according to appellants (Brief, p.
5):
Appellants’ Information Disclosure Statement filed
October 27, 1993, discloses two patents which
disclose examples of cements containing calcium
sulphoaluminate compounds. They are U.S. Patent
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007