Appeal No. 2004-2129
Application No. 09/923,118
acid and diozanone . . . and poly(lactic acid) . . .” recited in col. 3, lines 28-38. Although
not a model of clarity, we find that the referenced section of the patent
discloses the manner in which copolymers made from the monomer units set forth in
col. 3 are combined.
In addition, we point out that the examiner has not demonstrated that the
polymers disclosed in Brine have an adhesive strength of about 600 to about 150,000
Pa and a water solubility of 0.01 to about 500 mg/ml at about 25°C. As discussed
above, anticipation requires that each and every limitation set forth in a claim be present
in the applied prior art. In re Robertson, 169 F.3d at 745, 49 USPQ2d at 1950; Celeritas
Techs. Ltd v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d at 1360, 47 USPQ2d at 1522; Verdegaal
Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d at 631, 2 USPQ2d at 1053; Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist and Derrick Co., 730 F.2d at 1458, 221
USPQ at 485. The specification discloses that the adhesive strength (Pa) is
manipulated by changing the homopolymer and/or the molecular weight of the polymer.
Specification, pp. 19-22. The examiner has not pointed to any teachings in Brine which
establish that the polymers taught therein exhibit the claimed adhesive strength. Nor
does the examiner make any mention of the water solubility of the compounds disclosed
in the patent.
Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007