Appeal No. 1998-0419
Application No. 08/526,534
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) claims must be
interpreted by giving words their broadest reasonable meanings
in their ordinary usage, taking into account the written
description found in the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
But conversely, the interpretation of the claim language must be
"reasonable in light of the totality of the written
description." In re Baker Hughes Inc., 215 F.3d 1297, 1303, 55
USPQ2d 1149, 1153 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
In the present case, we find that the specification
enlightens one skilled in the relevant art to the fact that the
methods recited in appealed claims 1, 6, 12, 19, and 20, the
only independent claims on appeal, necessarily require the
manufacture of a chewing gum product in a single mixer.
(Specification, page 3, lines 3-9; page 7, lines 7-10; page 8,
lines 30-34; page 18, lines 21-23; page 35, lines 24-30.)
Nothing in the specification would have indicated to one skilled
in the relevant art that the invention encompassed methods in
which the chewing gum base discharged from a mixer is further
mixed with other chewing gum ingredients to form a chewing gum
product.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007