Appeal No. 2005-1969 6
Application No. 09/933,291
meaning different from the ordinary and accustomed meaning. "As an initial matter, the
PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning
of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant's
specification." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
Looking to the specification, we find a discussion of the hydrophilic composition
on page 15 in the last paragraph. According to that paragraph, a hydrophilic
composition is applied to the hydrophilic fiber from which the lower web is formed.
Although any hydrophilic composition could be used, preferred compositions include
Cirracol® PP842 fiber finish. The word “composition” is used in the specification in a
manner with the normally accepted meaning, i.e., as a mixture of substances. The
Examiner points to, and we do not find, any indication that Appellants intended a
meaning different from the commonly accepted meaning for the term “composition.”
In light of the above discussion, we determine that the Examiner’s interpretation
of “composition” was unreasonable in light of the evidence of record. The polyester and
viscose fiber blend of Darnett cannot be said to be a “nonwoven fiber having a
hydrophilic composition thereon” within the meaning of the claims.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007