Appeal No. 2003-0645 8
Application No. 09/245,625
contained essentially in the interstitial spaces between the fibers
of the floss.” Brief, pages 16-18.
During prosecution before the examiner, the language of the
claims is given its broadest reasonable meaning as ordinarily used,
as the language would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
this art, as defined or enlightened by the original disclosure.
See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). Neither appellants nor the examiner has pointed to any
definitions of “imbibed” in the original disclosure. However, we
note that each of the dictionary definitions cited by the examiner
and appellants define “imbibed” as “absorbed” (Brief, page 18;
final Office action, Paper No. 10, page 5). Accordingly, we
determine that there is no argument directed to the meaning of
“imbibed.”5 The issue is whether the multifilament fiber structure
of Hill “loaded” with active ingredient in the interstitial spaces
reads on the chemotherapeutic agent “imbibed in the fiber” as
recited in claim 1 on appeal.
We agree with the examiner that an active agent “imbibed in
the fiber” as claimed, when construed as broadly as reasonably
5 Note also that “imbibition” is defined as the absorption of a liquid
by a solid or a gel and that an “absorbent” is defined as “[a]ny agent which
imbibes or attracts moisture...”. See Hackh’s Chemical Dictionary, 3rd ed.,
pp. 2-3 and 431, The Blakiston Co., Inc., 1953 (a copy is attached to this
decision).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007