Appeal No. 96-3841 Page 6
Application No. 08/093,664
reading on two phosphoric acid-supporting active carbon
honeycombs in series between the suction port and the exhaust
port of a deodorizing apparatus?
In proceedings before the PTO, claims in an application are
to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the specification, and claim language should be read in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218
USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Our review of the appellant's
specification (especially pages 5-7 and 29-33 and particularly
page 33, lines 11-14) reveal that the appellant used "active
carbon honeycomb" to distinguish it from "chemical-supporting
active carbon honeycomb." In accordance with the above-
identified principle, we interpret claims 1, 23 and 26 as setting
forth that a nonchemical-supporting active carbon honeycomb and a
phosphoric acid-supporting active carbon honeycomb are disposed
in that order in a gas duct in the direction from the suction
port to the exhaust port of the deodorizing apparatus.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007