Appeal No. 1995-2659
Application 07/896,705
The issue for our review is whether the claimed
invention is properly rejectable under § 103 as
unpatentable over Pratt in view of Brouillard and further
in view of Matsuzaki. It is apparent from the arguments,
however, that although the ultimate issue is obviousness,
the dispositive question is one of claim interpretation,
requiring us to determine the meaning and scope of the
phrase “the substantial absence of a continuous liquid
phase”. In this regard,
[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
specification. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162
USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969), 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. In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016, 194 USPQ 187,
194 (CCPA 1977).
In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir. 1983).
Examiner’s position (Final Rejection, paper no. 5,
pp. 2-3) is that Pratt teaches a batch fermentation tank
similar to that used in the claimed method, albeit with
stirring and without a porous bed, that Brouillard
teaches that a porous bed of the type here used is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007