Appeal No. 95-1484
Application 08/070,650
C
We hold that the examiner’s rejections of Claims 57
and 64-66 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, 35 U.S.C.
§ 102, and 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reviewable on the merits and
the examiner’s rejections of Claims 68 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, 35 U.S.C. § 102, and 35 U.S.C. § 103 and for
obviousness-type double patenting are reviewable on the
merits. However, the merits of the examiner’s rejections of
Claims 49-56, 58-63, and 67 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, 35 U.S.C.
§ 102, and 35 U.S.C. § 103 are not properly reviewable at this
time. The scope and meaning of the term “reticulated
cellulose” in those claims is unclear; the term in Claim 49
must be broader in scope than the limiting characterization in
dependent Claim 57, because Claim 57 must, as a matter of law,
further limit Claim 49 upon which it depends (35 U.S.C. § 112,
fourth paragraph).
1. 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
During prosecution in the PTO, claim language is to be
given its broadest reasonable interpretation which is
consistent with the description of the invention in the
specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d
- 13 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007