Appeal No. 2002-1751 Page 4
Application No. 09/098,679
broadest reasonable interpretation; this interpretation must be consistent with what those skilled
in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 49 USPQ2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1999). With
regard to the individual words of the claims, where consistent with the specification, we must
give those words their ordinary and accustomed meaning. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31
USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We cannot ignore any interpretative guidance afforded by
the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Moreover, the words must not be taken out of the context of the claim in which they occur. The
claim is viewed as a whole and read in accordance with the precepts of English grammar. See
Abbott Labs. v. Syntron Bioresearch Inc., 334 F.3d 1343, 1351, 67 USPQ2d 1337, 1342 (Fed.
Cir. 2003); In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
With regard to the individual words of the claim, the key word is “glycerin.” The
Examiner notes that the term glycerin applies to purified commercial products normally
containing $ 95% of glycerol (Answer, p. 3). This usage of the term is consistent with the
ordinary and accustomed meaning in the art.3 According to this usage of the term, glycerin is a
composition which cannot contain anymore than 5% chemical compounds other than the
chemical compound glycerol. Appellant does not define the term “glycerin” nor does Appellant
give reasonable notice that the term is to have a different meaning. We, therefore, adopt the
3See Glycerol Nomenclature in 12 Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology 681 (Jacqueline I.
Kroschwitz & May Howe-Grant eds., 4th ed. 1996). A copy accompanies this Decision.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007