Appeal No. 2003-0172
Application 09/810,801
USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
The terms in patent claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation in view of the specification. See In
re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989).
The appellants’ specification states that the term “crude
oil feedstock” “may include primary, secondary or tertiary
recoveries of conventional or offshore oil fields as well as the
myriad of feedstocks derived therefrom as well as ‘syncrudes’
such as those that can be derived from coal, shale oil, tar sands
and bitumens” (page 2, line 22 - page 3, line 4). The
specification also states that prior art steam cracking processes
typically “require the feedstock to be deasphalted and
hydrotreated prior to feeding the feedstock into the steam
cracking unit” (page 1, line 17 - page 2, line 1), and that
“[l]ess costly means [i.e., the appellants’ process] for
producing olefins is desired” (page 2, line 3). Also, the
appellants do not argue that the gas oil in Wernicke ‘520
(col. 3, lines 44-55) is not a crude oil as that term is used by
the appellants.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007