Appeal No. 1996-2350
Application 07/843,833
Accordingly, we must construe the scope and meaning of the
contested limitation ". . . initial, chlorine free bleaching
stage . . . ." Our reviewing court has stated:3
[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.
As noted by appellant on page 2 of the reply brief,
the specification states:4
It is a further object to provide a
post-digestion treatment for kraft
cellulosic pulps in which there is no
chlorine con- taining bleaching agent
employed in the treatment.
In our view, the written description in appellant's
specification (pages 1 and 2) sets forth what is meant by
3 In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
4Specification, page 2, lines 3-5.
Page 7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007