Appeal No. 2004-0977
Application No. 10/043,762
set, and does not teach or suggest predicting the outdoor
durability of a first coating relative to the known outdoor
durability of at least one other set of coatings.
On page 6 of the brief, appellants argue that their method
is a method of predicting outdoor durability [emphasis added].
Appellants argue that Okazaki in view of Dudler does not teach
or suggest measuring the chemiluminescence of a coating in order
to predict the outdoor durability of a first coating relative to
the known outdoor durability of at least one other of a set of
teachings.
First, with regard to the claimed phrase of “predicting the
outdoor durability” [emphasis added], we refer to the examiner’s
comments made on pages 6-7 of the answer, which we incorporate
as our own. Here, the examiner correctly points out that the
specification shows that appellants are only comparing the
results of chemiluminescence testing, and making a conclusion
based on the results from such testing, regarding which coating
will last longer. In this context, the examiner interprets the
claimed phrase for “predicting the outdoor durability”, as such.
We agree. We note that it is a long-standing legal principal
that, during examination proceedings, claims are to be given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification. In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d
1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Hence we are not convinced by
appellants’ apparent emphasis on the word “predicting” in the
claimed phrase “predicting the outdoor durability” as having a
different meaning other than conducting tests on different
coatings and comparing the results, and based upon such results,
making a conclusion on which coating is more durable than the
other.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007