Appeal No. 96-2884
Application No. 08/181,997
During examination "claims in an application are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Sneed, 710
F. 2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ( emphasis added). Claim
definiteness depends on whether the inventor's claim language conveys to those
skilled in the art the scope of coverage. In re Credle, 25 F.3d, 1566, 1576, 30 USPQ2d
1911, 1919 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
As to claims 18, 19, 34, 38 and 39 the examiner contends that the phrase
“an equilibrium concentration “ is unclear as to its meaning or the basis for determining
it. The examiner believes that perhaps appellants meant to say “the equilibrium
concentration”.
We cannot agree with the examiner that the expression “an equilibrium
3
concentration” is indefinite . One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the
meaning of “an equilibrium concentration” with respect to the first gas, hydrogen, and a
second gas in that the individual named gases and implicitly other gas components will
react to produce a balance of gases in the system.
As to claim 18, the examiner also contends that the phrase “further
comprises” implies more gas but “no more than” still includes zero, and thus claim 18 is
3 In the event of further prosecution, the examiner should consider
whether the expression “an equilibrium concentration” of two gases satisfies the
description requirement or whether the expression is broader than the enabling
disclosure (35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007