Appeal 2007-1170
Application 10/971,698
applies to the verbiage of the 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,
1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
A critical limitation of the subject matter of claims 1, 4-10, and 13–18
appears to be the structural requirement that "a ratio of the interior volume
of the housing to a volume of the region between the baffle and the cover is
at least approximately 20:1" (claims 1 and 10, emphasis added). We
observe that the term "approximately" admits a degree of variation. The
question is, how much? The specification indicates that "any volume ratios
and baffle spacings capable of producing substantially uniform vapor flow
into the region of the apertures are considered to be within the scope of the
invention." (Specification at 14:30–32; emphasis added.) Hewing to the
inventor's disclosure, the term "at least approximately 20:1" could be
construed to encompass any volume ratio that yields a substantially uniform
vapor flow from the apertures. 4 Under these circumstances, the apparatus
described by Freeman 013 would appear to meet all the limitations of
claim 1. We emphasize that our invitation is precisely that: an invitation and
no more. The examiner and the applicants are in the better position, in the
4 It is not apparent that Freeman's specification or the prosecution history
thus far distinguishes the limitations "at least approximately 35:1" (claims 2
and 11) and "at least approximately 60:1" (claims 3 and 12) in any
patentably distinct way from the limitation "at least approximately 20:1" of
claims 1 and 10.
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013