Ex Parte Barthelemy et al - Page 2


               Appeal No. 2003-2023                                                                                                   
               Application 09/581,440                                                                                                 

               (Flynn ‘212).2                                                                                                         
                       The language of a claim must be interpreted prior to applying prior art thereto, and in this                   
               respect, the language must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the written                     
               description in appellants’ specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in this                   
               art.  See, e.g., In re Thrift, 298 F.3d 1357, 1364, 63 USPQ2d 2002, 2006 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re                       
               Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d                           
               319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).  It is apparent from the plain language of                         
               appealed claim 1 that the encompassed compositions comprise any amount, however small, of at                           
               least one perfluorobutyl methyl ether and any amount, however small, of at least one of the                            
               Markush group of acetate and formate esters, as well as any amount of any other ingredient(s),                         
               without limitation on the nature of the composition.  See generally, Exxon Chem. Pats., Inc. v.                        
               Lubrizol Corp., 64 F.3d 1553, 1555, 35 USPQ2d 1801, 1802 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The claimed                                
               composition is defined as comprising - meaning containing at least - five specific ingredients.”);                     
               In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686-87, 210 USPQ 795, 802-03 (CCPA 1981) (“As long as one of                               
               the monomers in the reaction is propylene, any other monomer may be present, because the term                          
               ‘comprises’ permits the inclusion of other steps, elements, or materials.”).                                           
                       In the ground of rejection under § 102(b), the examiner relies on the single appearance of                     
               the term “perfluorobutyl methyl ether” in Flynn ‘595 which is in claim 4 thereof, alleging that the                    
               reference thus teaches an “azeotrope-like composition containing a perfluorobutyl methyl ether in                      
               combination with an organic solvent” that can include the disclosed ethyl acetate.  The examiner                       
               finds that these facts constitute an anticipation of the appealed claims (Paper No. 11, page 2;                        
               answer, page 3).  Appellants point out that the single appearance of said term in claim 4 of Flynn                     
               ‘595 does not enable such compositions (answer, pages 5-6).                                                            
                       The relevant part of claim 4 of Flynn ‘595 reads, “(a) perfluorobutyl methyl ether,                            
               wherein the ether consists essentially of about 18 weight percent perfluoro-n-butyl ethyl ether,                       
               and about 82 weight percent perfluoroisobutyl ethyl ether,” which forms azeotrope-like                                 
               compositions with a halo-hydrocarbon solvent.  All of the other claims of the reference are                            

                                                                                                                                     
               2  The grounds of rejection are set forth in the Office action of October 11, 2002 (Paper No. 15;                      
               pages 2-3 and 4-5). See answer, page 3.                                                                                

                                                                - 2 -                                                                 



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007