Appeal No. 2001-0421
Application 08/926,835
During patent examination, the PTO gives claim language its
“broadest reasonable interpretation.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In general,
the terms in a patent claim are given their ordinary meaning as
used in the field of the invention unless the text of the patent
indicates that a word has special meaning. Rexnord Corp. v.
Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1342, 60 USPQ2d 1851, 1854 (Fed.
Cir. 2001). A patentee may be his own lexicographer provided
that he sets forth an explicit definition for a claim term in the
patent specification. Id.
Claim 1 recites “[a] process for the hydrogenation of an
imine . . . wherein the reaction mixture . . . additionally
contains an acid.” (Emphasis added.) The specification is
limited to the following explanation regarding the use of an acid
in the claimed process: “[t]he process according to the
invention further comprises the additional concomitant use of an
acid. It may be an inorganic or, preferably, an organic acid.”
Specification, page 18, second full paragraph. In our view this
language does not indicate that appellants intended to assign any
special meaning to the aforementioned claim language. Thus, the
claims must be interpreted based on their ordinary meaning.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007