Appeal 2007-0907
Application 10/159,367
release agent (Appeal Br. 8). As correctly pointed out by the Examiner,
however, the “comprises” language of claim 1 does not exclude these
alleged distinctions of Gosselink. Moreover, claim 1 plainly cannot be
regarded as novel in these argued respects when the claim is given its
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir.
2004).
We also find no convincing merit in the Appellants’ contention that
the Examiner’s anticipation finding is improperly based on optional
ingredients and isolated teachings in Gosselink (Appeal Br. 8:10). Like the
Examiner, we find that Gosselink teaches preferences for ingredients such as
nonionic surfactant and cationic cosurfactant which lead to the claim 1
composition (Gosselink, col. 10, ll. 38-56; col. 12, ll. 1-43; claim 11).
Specifically regarding the claim 1 requirement for polyhydric alcohol having
at least three free hydroxyl groups, this requirement is satisfied by 75% of
Gosselink’s polyols which contain 2 to 6 hydroxy groups and more
specifically by the glycerine member of the four polyol subclass exemplified
by Gosselink (col. 16, ll. 17-25). See In re Shaumann, 572 F.2d 312,
316-17, 197 USPQ 5, 9-10 (CCPA 1978) and In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676,
681-82, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962).
The Appellants additionally argue that Gosselink’s solvent system
includes ethanol which is excluded from the claim 1 composition by the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013