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