Appeal No. 2000-1386
Application No. 09/078,477
Appellants argue that claim 16 is allowable because it
requires application of both a first and second coating component
from a plurality of applicators into the cascading flow of granular
material to form a polymer. Appeal Brief, page 7. Appellants
maintain that Huttlin does not disclose this feature and that Moore
teaches applying coating to the granular material by spraying. Id.
Appellants’ arguments fail for several reasons. First, claim
16 requires the step of “applying a first and second coating
component” and does not require “injection” into the cascading
granular material. During prosecution, patent claims are given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification and claims. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054,
44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We have reviewed the
specification, but have found no indication that the inventors
intended anything other than the ordinary meaning of the term
“applying,” which, in the context of the present invention, is
understood to mean: “to place in contact, lay or spread on.”
Webster’s, supra, page 105 (apply 1e(1)). We concur in the
examiner’s finding that Moore’s teaching of introducing first and
second reactive materials to the granules renders obvious the step
of “applying.”
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007