Appeal No. 1997-2947
Application No. 08/352,079
themselves. A claim term should be given its ordinary meaning unless the specification provides
a special, different meaning or definition. There is a heavy presumption in favor of the ordinary
meaning of claim language. As such, any special definition given to a word must be clearly
defined in the specification. Although the written description may aid in the proper construction
of a claim term, limitations, examples or embodiments appearing only therein may not be read
into the claims. Kraft Foods Inc. v. International Trading Co., 203 F.3d 1362, 1366, 53
USPQ2d 1814, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Additionally, in interpreting the claims during ex parte
prosecution, we apply 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 may be afforded by written description
contained in appellants’ specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,
1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Further, prior art references may be "indicative of what all those skilled in
the art generally believe a certain term means . . . [and] can often help to demonstrate how a
disputed term is used by those skilled in the art." Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d
1576, 1584, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1578-79 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
As recited above, appellants’ claimed invention relates to a catalyst for the purification of
exhaust gases. The claimed catalyst comprises a catalyst A and an adsorption catalyst B.
Catalyst A is said to comprise both a honeycomb carrier and a three-way catalyst formed thereon
for “purifying the hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide in the vicinity of the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007