Appeal No. 1998-1722
Application No. 08/527,018
patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as
broadly as their terms reasonably allow.”); In re Yamamoto, 740
F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984)(“The PTO
broadly interprets claims during examination of a patent
application since the applicant may ‘amend his claim to obtain
protection commensurate with his actual contribution to the
art.’”)(quoting In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ
541, 550 (CCPA 1969)).
As noted above, appealed claim 1 recites:
A method of manufacturing chewing gum comprising
the steps of adding chewing gum ingredients to a high
efficiency continuous mixer that includes a conveyor
element on a screw of the mixer at a location that is
not directly under an ingredient addition port.
First, we note that in reciting the steps of the method,
appealed claim 1 includes the term “comprising.” The use of the
term “comprising” would alert potential infringers that the
recited step is essential, but that other unrecited step or
steps may be included and still form a construct within the
scope of the claim.2 Thus, appealed claim 1 encompasses a method
including a further step of adding a gum base to an additional
mixer to form a chewing gum product.
2 See, e.g., In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686, 210 USPQ 795,
802 (CCPA 1981).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007