Appeal No. 1998-0910
Application No. 08/454,596
We read claim 1 as a whole, in light of the underlying
disclosure. As to the specification, we find that it provides
a detailed description (pages 5 through 8) of the invention
referencing the illustration in Fig. 1. From our perspective,
one having ordinary skill in this art would have readily
appreciated, from a consideration of appellant’s overall
teaching, that the described and portrayed sewage removal
system operates above ground. We are in accord with the
advocated view (main brief, pages 6 and 7, and reply brief,
page 2) that, under the circumstances of the present case, the
term “above-ground” is appropriately given its ordinary
meaning of “[s]ituated on or above the surface of the ground.”
This ordinary meaning is clearly consistent with the showing
in appellant’s Fig. 1. Therefore, as we see it, claim 1 is
definite in setting forth an “above-ground sewage removal
system” comprising an “above-ground” transfer tank, and a
holding tank “above-ground” and remote from the transfer tank.
Simply stated, appellant’s claim 1, as acknowledged in the
main brief (page 7), is clearly limited by the definite
recitation of “above-ground.” This language is not merely an
intended use within the context of claim 1. Thus, the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007