Appeal No. 95-3082
Application No. 08/117,546
reference would allow, for example alcohol esters.” (brief,
page 6). As stated by our reviewing court in In re Morris:4
[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed
claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words
in their ordinary usage as they would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into
account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the applicant’s
specification.
The specification does not contain any definition of the term
“phenol ester” but does refer to a book and many patents to 5
show “usable phenols” (pages 11-12). The examples in the
specification use 4,4',4'’- trihydroxy-triphenylmethane, 2,2-
bis(2,4-dihydroxyphenyl)propane, 2,4,4'-trihydroxy-
diphenylmethane, 2,3,4,4'-tetrahydroxydiphenylmethane, and
2,3,4,4'-tetrahydroxy-benzophenone as phenols used for
esterifying various 1,2-naphthaquinone diazide compounds
(pages 18-27). “Without an express intent to impart a novel
meaning to claim terms, an inventor’s claim terms take on
their ordinary meaning.” York Prods., Inc. v. Central Tractor
4127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
5J. Kosai, “Light-Sensitive Systems”, pp. 339-357, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1965.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007