Appeal No. 1997-1059
Application No. 08/305,733
examiner’s answer. However, we add the following comments for
emphasis.
In proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
claims are interpreted by giving words their broadest reasonable
meaning in their ordinary usage, taking into account the written
description found in the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
To determine whether the examiner correctly applied the prior
art to the subject matter of appealed claim 53, we must determine the
scope and meaning of the following claim language:
. . . (a) injecting an effective amount of an atmosphere
into the coffee in a closed space or into the closed space
containing the coffee, the atmosphere consisting
essentially of a noble gas selected from the group
consisting of argon, neon, xenon, and krypton; and
(b) saturating said coffee or said closed space
containing said coffee with said atmosphere to more than
50% volume of saturation with said noble gas. . .
The appellants explain in their specification as follows:
It has been unexpectedly discovered that if instead
of blanketing the space above a coffee stored or processed
in a container or a closed space with any kind of inert
gas, a gas selected from the group consisting of argon,
krypton, xenon and neon or a mixture thereof is sparged
into the coffee (around the beans or into the powder made
of ground coffee or instant coffee) and/or injected above
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007