Appeal No. 2006-0064 Παγε 8
Application No. 09/155,740
“solute infusion into the fruit.” Appellants’ specification
refers to “introducing solutes into fruits” (page 2, lines 29 and
30; page 3, lines 2-5) in a rapid or reduced time. The term
“infusion” is employed in the appealed claims and in describing
first and second embodiments of appellants’ invention in the
specification. We interpret that claim term in light of the
specification as requiring the uptake or introduction of the
solute into the fruit. That latter interpretation is consistent
with appellants’ specification and in accordance with our
reviewing court’s admonition that claim terms are to be given
their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
application specification as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art during PTO administrative proceedings.
See in re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir. 1983). Moreover, the open “comprising” language of claim 1
does not limit the claimed process to the exclusion of other
materials, steps and equipment in addition to that specifically
called for in claim 1.
Consequently, we determine that claim 1 is not as limited
as argued. Rather, claim 1 is inclusive of a variety of solute
uptake methods, including methods using a vacuum as disclosed by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007