Appeal No. 95-1528
Application 07/952,684
A. The methods appellants claim comprise the steps of
“providing a disinfectant” and “dispensing the disinfectant with
the microaerosol apparatus” (Claims 39, 46, and 57). Both the
examiner and appellants appear to have presumed throughout the
prosecution of the subject matter on appeal that a method which
provides and dispenses “vaccine droplets,” as does the method
Frankel describes, does not describe a method which provides and
dispenses “disinfectant” in accordance with the claimed method.
We recommend that the examiner and appellants reconsider their
interpretation of the scope of the term “disinfectant” in
appellants’ claims in light of the following definition of the
term “disinfectant” in the specification (p. 6, first full
para.):
In some forms of the invention the disinfectant
administered is hydrogen peroxide or glutaraldehyde
or any other disinfectant which is (1) an effective
antimicrobial agent, (2) minimizes the degree of
physical damage to the avian respiratory tissue,
(3) improves upon or does not decrease the percentage
of chicks that survive the hatching process, (4) does
not result in poor post hatch performance, and (5) is
safe for people to work in the presence of the material.
If when giving the “disinfectant” of appellants’ claims its
broadest reasonable interpretation which is consistent with the
description of the invention in the specification, the examiner
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007