Appeal No. 1998-1832
Application No. 08/434,331
During patent prosecution, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, and the claim language is to be read in view of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Sneed, 710
F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d
545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976).
Our construction of the subject matter defined by appellants’ claim 1 is that the
claimed subject matter is directed to two separate and distinct recovery systems. The first
recovery system process is directed to evaporating the filtrate containing the used
cooking chemicals to produce a concentrated filtrate and incinerating it. See Figures 1,
1D and 17-20. The second recovery system process is directed to evaporating the
filtrate containing used bleach chemicals to produce a condensed filtrate which is
thereafter incinerated. See Figures 1, 6D and 11-16. According to the process
disclosed in Figure 1, only residual cooking chemicals remain in the pulp as it moves
from the washing steps 2 and 3 to the oxygen delignification step 7 and the bleaching
step 9.
In contrast, we find that Henricson discloses the recovery of two different fluid
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007