Appeal No. 2000-1007
Application 08/853,007
way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the
applicant’s specification.”); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989) (“During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their
terms reasonably allow. When the applicant states the meaning that the claim terms are intended
to have, the claims are examined with that meaning, in order to achieve a complete exploration
of the applicant’s invention and its relation to the prior art. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393,
1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969) (before the application is granted, there is no
reason to read into the claim the limitations of the specification.).”
Thus, we interpret the claim term “binder-free” to permit the inclusion to some extent of
“binder material such as clays or metal oxides, i.e., alumina or silica” which performs the
function as a “binder” and does not form a part of the crystalline molecular sieve for another
purpose. With respect to the extent that binder material can be included, we point out that the
term “substantially free” is a term of degree for which the written description in the specification
must either provide a definition or some standard of measurement for the claim term that it
modifies, or that term will be given its broadest reasonable ordinary meaning of from free to
largely but not wholly free. See Morris, supra; York Prods., Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm &
Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1572-73, 40 USPQ2d 1619, 1622-23 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“In this case,
the patent discloses no novel use of claim words. Ordinarily, therefore, ‘substantially’ means
‘considerable in . . . extent,’ American Heritage Dictionary Second College Edition 1213 (2d ed.
1982), or ‘largely but not wholly that which is specified,’ Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate
Dictionary 1176 (9th ed. 1983).”); Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Industrial Crating & Packing Inc.,
731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 573-74 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“Definiteness problems arise when
words of degree are used. That some claim language may not be precise, however, does not
automatically render a claim invalid. When a word of degree is used . . . [it] must [be
determined] whether the patent’s specification provides some standard for measuring that
degree.”); In re Mattison, 509 F.2d 563, 564-65, 184 USPQ 484, 486 (CCPA 1975); cf. In re
Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802-03, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (the generally guidelines in
appellants’ specification with respect to the term “essentially free of alkali metal” permitted a
person of ordinary skill in the art to “draw the line between unavoidable impurities in starting
materials and essential ingredients”). We point out in this respect, it is appellants’ burden to
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007