Appeal No. 1999-2446 Page 15
Application No. 08/705,592
opinion that such a mass would still be readable on the
claimed wood fragments. In that regard, we find that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of loose as used in claim 4
6 is that the wood fragments while confined within the
container are not fastened to each other. Accordingly, it is
our view that each of Scott's rows consists of wood fragments
which are loose since the wood fragments are not fastened to
each other within the wire mesh surrounding each row.
Furthermore, it is our determination that the wood
fragments disclosed by Scott (i.e., willow or other suitable
tree growths or brush) would inherently not have smooth
surfaces that tend to stick together when wet and form a mass
of fragments that prevents flow of water through the bag, and
the wood fragments resist adhering to other wood fragments
4The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) applies to the
verbiage of the claims before it 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 appellant's specification. In re Morris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See
also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir. 1983). In this case, we note that the term "loose" does
not appear in the original disclosure.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007