Appeal No. 2006-1676
Application No. 10/384,882
Examiner’s broad interpretation of the claimed b2 reaction
product is neither reasonable nor consistent with the
specification. Appellants’ specification clearly sets forth that
their invention does not include foams formed by or polyols
containing alkoxylated Mannich bases.
The strongest indication that the Examiner’s interpretation
of the b2 reaction product is not reasonable or consistent with
Appellants’ specification is that it is directly opposite
toAppellants’ expressly stated claim scope in their
specification. A person reading the claims in light of the
specification would reasonably and necessarily determine that
alkoxylated Mannich bases are not within the scope of
Appellants’ claims. Accordingly, the Examiner’s claim
interpretation cannot be regarded as proper.
In summary, we find that Appellants have clearly disclaimed
using alkoxylated Mannich bases as the b2 reaction product in
their claimed invention. With such a unequivocal disclaimer,
the Examiner’s claim interpretation that element b2 of
Appellants’ appealed claims would include alkoxylated Mannich
bases is directly opposite to the clear meaning stated by
Appellants, and thus is in error. See SciMed Life Sys. v.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007