Appeal No. 97-0292 Application 07/814,779 embodiment or as being unsatisfactory for the intended purpose” (emphasis ours). In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966). We also observe that what Cline considers “ineffective” vis-à-vis what the appellants consider “ineffective” is not clear. Moreover, we did not simply rely on lines 39-43 of column 2 of Cline as the appellants imply. In our decision we also made note of the fact that in Cline: the first line of the Abstract and column 2, lines 17-27, state that the invention is for a wrapper having “at least 15% by weight magnesium oxide in combination with at least 0.5% by weight of a specific chemical adjuvant,” without making any mention whatsoever of “other convention fillers” being used. Equally significant is the fact that in independent claim 1 Cline sets forth that the wrapper contains “at least 15% magnesium oxide and at least 0.5% of a chemical adjuvant salt,” without setting forth that the wrapper contains “other conventional fillers.” [Page 6.] The appellants also urge that they are the “ones” skilled in the art and imply that, as such, their interpretation of Cline should be dispositive. However, as the court stated in In re Vamco Mach. & Tool, Inc., 752 F.2d 1564, 1575, 24 USPQ2d 617, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1985): “We too can read this patent and understand what it describes.” 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007