Appeal No. 96-1781
Application 08/389,521
surfactant/water mixture. See In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679,
686, 210 USPQ 795, 802 (CCPA 1981).
During patent prosecution, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and the claim language is to be read in view of
the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d
1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Okuzawa,
537 F.2d 545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976). As argued
by appellants (brief, page 20), the description and examples
in appellants’ specification do not state that an organic
solvent is used in the process. However, we find no
disclosure in the specification which indicates that the
claims, when interpreted in view of the specification, exclude
the use of an organic solvent. Appellants specifically refer
to the bottom of page 1 to the top of page 2 of their
-5-5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007