Appeal No. 2000-1653
Application No. 08/906,586
Discussion
In proceedings before it, the PTO will give words in a
claim their ordinary and accustomed meaning absent an intent
in the specification to use them in a more limited or
different sense. See In re Barr, 444 F.2d 588, 597, 170 USPQ
330, 339 (CCPA 1971); Envirotech Corp. v. Al George, Inc., 730
F.2d 753, 759, 221 USPQ 473, 477 (Fed. Cir. 1984), and Nike,
Inc. v. Wolverine World Wide, 43 F.3d 644, 646-47, 33 USPQ2d
1038, 1039-40 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Here, it appears that the
only appearance of the word “uniformly” in this case is in
claim 1 in the limitation “means within said first chamber for
uniformly mixing materials introduced therein with a carrier
fluid flowing therethrough” (emphasis added), the word
“uniformly” having been introduced into the claim upon entry
of the second amendment (Paper No. 15) subsequent to the final
rejection. Under these circumstances, we presume that the
meaning of the adverb “uniformly” corresponds to the ordinary
and accustomed definition of the adjective “uniform,” e.g.,
“1.a. Always the same: UNVARYING . . . b. Being without
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007