Ex parte ASCHENBECK et al. - Page 8

               Appeal No. 1998-0241                                                                        Page 8                 
               Application No. 08/465,373                                                                                         

               Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d                                 
               1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).  It is not necessary that the reference teach what the subject                        
               application teaches, but only that the claim read on something disclosed in the reference, i.e.,                   
               that all of the limitations in the claim be found in or fully met by the reference.  Kalman v.                     
               Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983),                                       
               cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).                                                                                
                      With regard to whether Troth anticipates claim 1, the only issue in dispute is whether                      
               the application of the deflection air streams of Troth meets the claimed step of applying low                      
               frequency sound to at least one portion of said fibers to cause the at least one portion of said                   
               fibers to deviate in its direction of travel.  The examiner asserts that, while Troth does not use                 
               the term sound, the air streams do meet the definition of sound (answer, pages 6 and 7).                           
                      In proceedings before it, the PTO applies to the verbiage of 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.  In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).                          
               Moreover, an applicant can be his own lexicographer provided the applicant's definition, to the                    
               extent it differs from the conventional definition, is clearly set forth in the specification.                     

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007