Appeal No. 1997-0334
Application 08/211,698
main brief that "Markusch et al teaches forming an aqueous
dispersion by blending a polyisocyanate component and a polyol
component with water, applying the unreacted mixture to a
substrate and curing the coating by reacting the components",
the narrow issue for us to decide, as framed by appellants, is
whether Markusch et al. teach or fairly suggest component
"a2)" of appellants' process. Appellants urge that Markusch
et al.'s polyols are not "polymerization resins" and,
therefore, Markusch et al. cannot render obvious, in the sense
of the statute, the claimed invention. Appellants further
argue that the claim terminology "polymerization resin" as
defined in the specification is different from all Markusch et
al.'s "polycondensation resins" described as useful polyols in
Markusch et al.'s process. We disagree.
It is by now fundamental that pending claims in an
application for patent are given their broadest, reasonable
interpretation, in light of the teachings of the prior art and
consistent with an applicant's disclosure as it would have
been interpreted by a person of ordinary skill in the art. In
re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971);
In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 1405, 162 USPQ 541, 550,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007