Appeal No. 1997-3589
Application No. 08/117,013
Lubricant
Appellants' claimed lubricant component is stated to have improved biodegradability and
consists of a block copolyester prepared from blocks A) and B). To properly interpret the term
“lubricant” we look toward the specification as the specification acts as a dictionary when it expressly
defines terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by implication. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054-1055, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“... the PTO applies to the verbiage of the
proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of 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 written description contained in applicant’s
specification.”). In the present application, appellants have stated that: “The lubricants in spinning
finishes are intended above all to provide the filaments with the necessary surface slip.” (Specification,
p. 1, lines 30-32). Further, appellants' specification states that:
... the lubricants would show good surface-slip properties by virtue of a hydrophobic
component of the molecule and would readily be incorporable in water by virtue of a
hydrophilic component of the molecule. The lubricants would also be readily
removable from the fibers and would show high temperature stability. (Specification,
p.3, lines 28-31).
Thus, lubricants of the claimed invention are those which provide treated fiber filaments with the
necessary surface slip.
Page 5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007