Appeal No. 2003-0270
Application 09/087,234
independent claim. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1566 n.2, 37
USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
Claim interpretation
During patent prosecution, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, as the claim language would have been read by one
of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification and
prior art. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320,
1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). It is proper to use the specification to
interpret what the appellants mean by a word or phrase in the
claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-56, 44 USPQ2d 1023,
1027-30 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
As acknowledged by the appellants (brief filed October 30,
2000, paper no. 10, page 3),1 the portion of the appellants’
specification which indicates the meaning of “collapsed pores” in
the appellants’ claim 4 is the last two paragraphs on page 13 and
Figure 6. These paragraphs of the specification are as follows:
An alternative xerogel surface enhancement
collapses a thin layer of the xerogel at the surface to
form a relatively continuous shell; the shell provides
1 Elsewhere in this opinion the brief cited is that filed on
February 11, 2002 (paper no. 15).
-3-3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007