Appeal No. 1998-1880
Application No. 08/423,865
[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims 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
applicant’s specification.
With regard to the first step:
Appellants’ specification discloses (page 4) that:
A number of ways have been presented in order to
collect the intragastric gas; one is a method of collecting the
gas directly by use of a cannula.
…
For the purpose of collecting the intragastric gas, it has
now been found to be advantageous to lead the gas to the oral
cavity with the aid of a vomiting-reflexive belching….
Appellants’ specification also discloses (page 2) Hamilton’s prior art method
of diagnosing H.p. infection. According to appellants’ specification (id.) in
Hamilton’s method:
the detection has been made based on [the] theory that if urea
is administered to a person infected with H.p., at least some
portion of ammonia generated by the activity of H.p. is
absorbed into the blood stream, passes through the liver
without being broken down there, and is delivered to expired
air at the alveoli of the lungs.
Appellants’ specification discloses (page 3) that:
[A]n application of the [Hamilton] method for the actual
diagnosis is quite difficult or impossible from the view point of
sensitivity, since almost all part of [sic] ammonia absorbed into
the blood stream will be broken down by the liver and only a
trace amount thereof shall appear in the breath sample.
The examiner recognizes that the appealed “claims differ from Hamilton in
that they specify collecting gas in the gastric cavity whereas Hamilton teaches
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007