Appeal No. 2006-1119
Application No. 09/381,631
“still does not disclose manufacturing glass.” Appellants 3
maintain that the slag disclosed by Floyd “is not suggestive of
anything with regard to manufacturing glass.” Appellants argue 4
that the slag of Floyd is used “only as a building material, for
such engineering purposes as shot blasting, or for a disposal for
landfill.” 5
The flaw in appellants’ argument is that appellants want the
claim recitation “[p]rocess of manufacturing glass” (claim 38) to
be narrowly interpreted as making commercial-grade glass.
However, such a narrow interpretation is not in keeping with the
long-accepted requirement that claim language during prosecution
be given its broadest reasonable interpretation. In the present
case, we concur with the examiner that the claimed process of
making glass reasonably encompasses processes for making glassy
material of all grades and purity level. As noted by the
examiner, appellants do “not claim or disclose a proportion of
glass in the feed stream or product of the invention.” 6
3Id.
4Id.
5Sentence bridging pages 6 and 7 of principal brief.
6Page 8 of answer, first paragraph.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007