Appeal No. 1997-1515
Application 08/361,891
neutralized with various bases to form salts (col. 8, lines
55-68), it appears that appellant’s particles and those of
Ahmed are the same and that, therefore, Ahmed’s particles have
a surface functionality which is suitable for charging in an
electrophoretic display as required by appellant’s claim 49
(answer, page 9). This argument is not well taken because the
compositions of Ahmed’s methacrylic acid neutralized with the
disclosed bases are quite different from those of appellant’s
functional monomers. The examiner has provided no technical
explanation as to why, regardless of this difference, Ahmed’s
particles have a surface functionality which is suitable for
charging in an electrophoretic display.
The examiner argues that “[i]t appears that the reaction
of the [i.e., Ahmed’s] neutralizing agent with the polymeric
hydrophilic shell which changes the surface acid groups into a
salt appears to read on the presently required functional
monomer” (answer, page 4). We give appellant’s claim 49 its
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d
1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548,
-6-6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007