Appeal No. 2003-1918
Application No. 08/945,722
granules, but that the starch solution has been dried in the form
of particles” (brief, page 8). Even assuming the appellants are
correct, however, the fact remains that the ordinary and
customary meaning of the claim term “granules” includes
“particles” as previously indicated.
It is well settled that, during examination proceedings,
claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification. In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367,
1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000). When appealed
independent claim 1 is so interpreted, it is clear that the
starch granules defined thereby do not distinguish over the
Superlose-based starch granules of Elizer. The contrary views
expressed in the briefs and in the § 1.132 declaration of record
are not well taken because they are based on an overly narrow and
thus incorrect interpretation of appealed independent claim 1.
In summary, the appellants’ arguments are irrelevant with
respect to appealed independent claim 64 and are unpersuasive
with respect to appealed independent claim 1. We shall sustain,
therefore, the examiner’s section 103 rejection of claims 1-14,
17, 18, 20, 21 and 64 as being unpatentable over Elizer and his
corresponding rejection of claims 1-14, 17, 18, 20-22 and 64 as
being unpatentable over Elizer in view of Jewell.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007