Appeal 2007-1900
Application 10/605,858
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 particular definition or
disclaimer of meaning with regard to “activator dissolved in a solvent.”
With regard to the meaning of “dissolve,” Appellants cite a definition from
Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (Second
Edition). According to Appellants’ reproduced definition, dissolve means
“to convert from a solid to a liquid state by merging with a liquid; to make a
solution of; as, to dissolve sugar in water.” (Reply Br. 6).
Reading the claim language broadly as is reasonable and consistent
with the Specification, and as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill
in the art, we determine that it does not exclude the presence of undissolved
activator, it only requires that there be some “activator dissolved in a
solvent.” This interpretation is consistent with the plain meaning of
“dissolve” as advanced by Appellants in the Reply Brief. Some of the
activator will be converted to a liquid state and present in a solution. It is
also consistent with the “comprising” nature of the claim which makes the
claim open to the mixing of ingredients other than those specifically recited
or specifically excluded. Claim 1 does not exclude the presence of activator
which is undissolved.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013