Appeal No. 96-2311
Application 08/139,057
aqueous medium is excluded from the total weight of the
ingredients (Examiner's Answer, page 4). We disagree.
As stated in In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983),
[i]t is axiomatic that, in proceedings before the
PTO, claims in an application are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specifi-cation, and that claim language should
be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
[Citations omitted].
Following that principle of claim interpretation, we conclude
that "[t]he weight of the aqueous medium is excluded" (main
brief, page 7, first paragraph). This becomes clear on
reading the claim language in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See
the specification, page 3, last paragraph, stating that "[t]he
inorganic salt ingredient typically will comprise between
about 10-80 weight percent based on the weight of dry blend
formula-tion." By the same token, see the specification, page
6, first paragraph, stating that "[t]he compatibility
enhancing ingredient is incorporated in a quantity between
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007