Appeal No. 1997-1018
Application No. 08/369,944
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.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The meaning of the word “about”
is dependent on
the facts of each case. Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035,
1040, 34 USPQ2d 1467, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The meaning of
the word “about” is not specifically defined in appellants’
specification. Accordingly, the words of a claim will be
given their ordinary meaning unless it appears that appellants
used them differently. The ordinary meaning of “about” is
“with some approach to exactness in quantity, number, or
time.” See Conoco Inc. v. May Department Stores Co., 46 F.3d
1556, 1561, n. 2, 32 USPQ2d 1225, 1227, n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Appellants’ original disclosure and claims were directed to a
lower limit of “about 10%” for the hydroxyethyl methacrylate
monomer but this limit was amended to “about 15%” to emphasize
the “high amounts of hydroxyalkyl acrylate component” as
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007