Appeal No. 2006-0010 Page 5
Application No. 10/170,538
1997); accord Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047, 34 USPQ2d 1565,
1567 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
The subject matter of claim 64 is directed to a foamed metal melt. The subject
matter of claim 66 is directed to a metal foam part made from the foamed metal melt of
claim 64.
We start with the claim language. Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43
USPQ2d 1030, 1032, (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d
1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office (PTO), claims must be interpreted by giving words their broadest reasonable
meanings in their ordinary usage, taking into account the written description found in the
specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir.
1997)("[T]he 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 Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322
(Fed. Cir. 1989)("During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as
broadly as their terms reasonably allow.").
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007