Appeal No. 96-1720
Application 08/389,520
which has not been crosslinked (page 2, lines 9-17; page 16,
lines 9-12).
Thus, when “crosslinked” in the preamble of appellants’
claims is interpreted in view of appellants’ specification, it
is not clear whether the term means that the epoxidized
polymer and aminoplast in the dispersion applied to the
substrate are crosslinked, such that a curing reaction has
taken place between the epoxidized polymer and the aminoplast,
in which case the dispersion no longer necessarily has the
composition recited in the independent claims, or whether the
term means that a dispersion of the recited composition is
applied to the substrate and that the epoxidized polymer and
aminoplast in this dispersion are to be subsequently
crosslinked.
In some instances, it is possible to make a reasonable,
conditional interpretation of claims adequate for the purpose
of resolving patentability issues to avoid piecemeal appellate
review. In the interest of administrative and judicial
economy, this course is appropriate wherever reasonably
possible. See Ex parte Saceman, 27 USPQ2d 1472, 1474 (Bd.
Pat. App. & Int. 1993); Ex parte Ionescu, 222 USPQ 537, 540
-5-5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007