Ex Parte LEVEILLE - Page 4


               Appeal No. 2000-1862                                                                                                   
               Application 08/834,061                                                                                                 

               limitation or particular embodiment which is disclosed in the specification.  See In re Zletz, 893                     
               F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Priest, 582 F.2d 33, 37, 199                            
               USPQ 11, 15 (CCPA 1978).  Thus, the terms in the appealed claim must be given their ordinary                           
               meaning unless another meaning is intended by appellant as established in the written description                      
               of the specification.  See, e.g., Morris, supra; Zletz, supra (“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.).”).                                                                                 
                       It is readily apparent from the plain language of appealed claim 37 that the same is                           
               directed to a rare earth-doped sol-gel glass monolith product that appellant intends “for” use as                      
               “[a] calibration medium” for calibration of an optical instrument of the type having the                               
               components recited in the preamble of the claim, including a spectral light source capable of                          
               emitting light in the “far UV range.”  The body of the claim specifies that the rare earth-doped                       
               sol-gel glass monolith product must be “capable of assuming a position within the light path of                        
               such an optical instrument” (emphasis supplied) recited in the preamble of the claim.  Such “an                        
               optical instrument” is broadly described in the written description of the specification as                            
               “[u]traviolet (UV) absorbance detectors or detection systems”  (e.g., page 1, lines 12-16; page 7,                     
               lines 11-16; page 10, lines 7-11) and is not limited to the preferred embodiments disclosed in the                     
               specification (e.g., page 14, lines 2-7).  Indeed, appellant discloses that                                            
                    [i]t is within the scope of the instant invention for the above described teachings of the                        
                    instant invention, including the above described calibration medium, to be used to                                
                    calibrate any of a number of detectors, detection systems, instruments, [sic] analysis                            
                    apparatuses. In particular, such detectors, detection systems, instruments, analysis                              
                    apparatuses that are particularly adapted or configured to sense spectral emissions                               
                    extending into the far UV range.  [Page 28, line 23, to page 29, line 1.]                                         

                                                                                                                                      
               printed publication . . . [the applicant] may submit an appropriate oath or declaration to overcome                    
               the patent or publication.”                                                                                            

                                                                - 4 -                                                                 



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007