Appeal No. 2003-1918
Application No. 08/945,722
appellants state that “[t]he claims must be read from the view
from one skilled in the art in light of the specification” and
contend that “[o]ne skilled in the art would interpret this
phrase [i.e., the claim 1 phrase “comprising granules extracted
from a potato plant”] as meaning that the starch is in its
natural state, that of granules” (reply brief, page 2). This
last mentioned contention is not well founded.
There is a heavy presumption that a claim term carries its
ordinary and customary meaning. Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion
Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1327, 65 USPQ2d 1385, 1394 (Fed.
Cir. 2003). The ordinary and customary meaning of the appealed
claim 1 term “granule” is “a small grain or pellet: PARTICLE”
(Webster’s II, New Riverside University Dictionary, 1984). In
light of the aforementioned presumption, it is appropriate that
we interpret claim 1 including the claim term “granules” pursuant
to this meaning.
As previously stated, the appellants contend that the claim
1 phrase “starch comprising granules extracted from a potato
plant” should be interpreted “as meaning that the starch is in
its natural state, that of granules” (reply brief, page 2). This
is incorrect. The claim contains no such limitation, and it
would be inappropriate to read such a limitation into the claim
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007