Appeal No. 95-1079
Application 08/037,192
present invention would not enable the polymeric
products with the desired molecular weight and
polydispersity properties of the present invention as
disclosed and claimed. Use of chain transfer agents
would preclude access to narrow polydispersity
polymeric products and higher molecular weight
products, since these agents limit chain growth by
irreversible chain termination and “transfer” of the
free radical species, for example, to a non-reactive
species. [Brief, page 5; emphasis in the original.]
The examiner asserts that appellants are arguing limitations
(e.g. control of polydispersity) which are outside the scope of
the claims.
Our analysis begins with the meaning of the term “stable
free radical agents” in the claims on appeal. The terminology in
a pending claim is to be interpreted as broadly as reasonably
possible. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322
(Fed. Cir. 1989). It is well settled that claim language is not
considered in a vacuum, but in light of the supporting
specification and teachings of the prior art as it would be
interpreted by one having ordinary skill in the relevant art.
In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1983); In re Kroekel, 504 F.2d 1143, 1146, 183 USPQ 610, 612
(CCPA 1974); In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238
(CCPA 1971). We therefore look to appellants’ specification for
the meaning of the term “stable free radical agent.”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007