Appeal No. 2004-2354
Application No. 09/923,991 Page 6
examiner determined that giving “matrix” that broadest reasonable
definition results in the claimed matrix encompassing the foam of
Jordan. Accordingly, the examiner has determined that
representative claim 1 is prima facie anticipated by Jordan.
We find ourselves in agreement with the examiner. Our
reviewing court in In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d
1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) stated that during prosecution or
examination of a patent application, the claims therein
be interpreted as broadly as their terms
reasonably allow. When the applicant state
the meaning that the claim terms are intended
to have, the claims are examined with that
meaning, in order to achieve a complete
exploration of the applicant’s invention and
its relation to the prior art.
The purpose of giving the broadest reasonable interpretation,
absent the definition in the specification to the contrary, is to
allow appellants to amend3 their claims to obtain the proper
coverage by express claim language, “the thought being to reduce
the possibility that, after the patent is granted, the claims may
be interpreted as giving broader coverage than is justified.”
In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (1969).
3 Prosecution, unlike litigation, allows appellants to amend
claims.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007