Appeal 2005-2547
Application 10/134,817
stream “in the vicinity of” the selected location (Br. 45-46; Reply Br. 14-16),
nor is it a “high pressure” pump (Reply Br. 14). These arguments raise
issues of claim interpretation.
During examination, “claims . . . are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech.
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Absent
claim language carrying a narrow meaning, we only limit the claim based on
the specification when those sources expressly disclaim the broader
definition. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324-25, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1210-11
(Fed. Cir. 2004).
Looking to the Specification, we find no language particularly
limiting the identity of the claimed “drilling fluid additive medium.” The
Specification mentions “additives, such as the pulverulent bentonite,” talks
of providing a feed line for the “additive medium,” and names
“supplementary additives such as, for example, polymers or soda ash.”
(Specification 3:20-31). The Specification is, therefore, open ended with
regard to the identity of the additive medium.
We, therefore, analyze the plain language of the words. The broadest
reasonable interpretation of “drilling fluid additive medium,” based on the
language itself, includes any compound or composition added to a fluid
destined to be used as a drilling fluid.
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013