Appeal No. 1999-1763
Application No. 08/834,931
defined in appellant’s specification (page 5, line 3+; page 6,
line 8+), since Price’s biomass does not enable proper
migration and composting by the worms inasmuch as it does not
have the proper thickness, uniformity, and a contiguous
absence of breaks. The examiner has taken the position that
by virtue of the 2 mm spacing between Price’s hopper front
edge and the conveyor belt, the resulting layer of worms and
medium is considered to be
“thin” for all practical purposes. Furthermore, the examiner
argues that appellant’s claim 1 does not assign an objective
value to the thickness or provide any additional criteria for
gauging it.
We agree with the examiner. Unpatented claims should be
given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specification and limitations of the specification should
not be read into the claims where no express statement of
limitation is included in the claims. See In re Prater, 415
F.2d 1393, 1404-05 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969). In the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007