Appeal No. 1998-1273
Application No. 08/624,148
is used, it must be determined whether the specification
defines or limits this word and whether one of ordinary skill
in the pertinent art would understand what is claimed when the
claim is read in light of the specification. See Andrew Corp.
v. Gabriel Electronics, 847 F.2d 819, 821-22, 6 USPQ2d 2010,
2012-13 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Industrial
Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 573-
74 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Here we determine that appellants have
submitted evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood the claimed words “high,” “low” and “medium”
in relation to high and low temperature water gas shift
reaction catalysts. See attachment A to the Brief (Twigg).
Although Twigg is not specific to copper/zinc oxide catalysts,
it is our opinion that sufficient criteria are set forth in
Twigg for one of ordinary skill in this art to understand what
was meant by the claim language with respect to any specific
water gas shift reaction catalyst.
The initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability on any ground rests with the examiner. See In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007