Appeal No. 94-1451
Application 07/839,640
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a foam
composition for improving sweep efficiency in an oil-bearing
formation which comprises a water-soluble, carboxylate-containing
polymer; a trivalent chromium-containing crosslinking agent; a
surfactant; an aqueous liquid solvent; and a foaming gas.
Dependent claim 3 defines the water-soluble, carboxylate-
containing polymer as a biopolymer including, inter alia, guar
gum. A significant issue generated by the examiner’s prior art
rejection is whether or not the applied prior art reference to
Stern describes or suggests a carboxylate-containing guar gum
biopolymer as defined by appealed claim 3.
The review of any prior art rejection, whether for
anticipation or obviousness, requires first that the claims have
been correctly construed to define the scope and meaning of the
relevant limitations. Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457,
43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In proceedings before the
Patent and Trademark Office, 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 construed by one of ordinary skill
in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388
(Fed. Cir. 1983). Claim construction by the Patent and Trademark
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007