Appeal No. 1996-1716
Application No. 08/344,532
1978). The invention as now claimed recites the contested
phrase “major amount” with regard to the epoxy resin (see
component (a) in claim 1 on appeal). Accordingly, we must
interpret the scope of this contested phrase to determine if
the original disclosure reasonably conveyed to the artisan
that appellant was in possession of the invention as now
claimed. As stated by our reviewing court in In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997):
...the 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 definition or
otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the applicant’s
specification.
The phrase “major amount” was not present in the
originally filed disclosure but was added to claim 1 during
prosecution. Therefore, there is no definition of “major4
amount” in the original disclosure or elsewhere in this
record. Giving the phrase “major amount” its meaning in
4See the amendment dated May 16, 1994, Paper No. 4, filed
in parent Application No. 08/082,609.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007