Appeal No. 95-1628
Application 08/067,750
specification discloses that the internal pressure of the
foamed plastics can be further reduced through the use of such
initiators (e.g., pages 8 and 16-17). We are further of the
view that the terms “an oligomer” and “a polymer” are entitled
to their ordinary meaning in the art which is an oligomer or
polymer formed from either homo- or co- monomers. Thus, the
cells may contain homo-oligomers and -polymers which are
derived from the foaming monomer per se and/or co-oligomers
and -polymers derived from the foaming monomer with other
monomers, oligomers and polymers which may be in the cell or
otherwise associated with the contents of the cell in such
manner that they can be “reacted” with the foaming monomer
present in the cell.
In construing appealed claim 1, we cannot agree with the
examiner that the phrase “foaming monomer is reacted” is
indefinite (answer, page 4) since appellants’ specification
clearly discloses several schemes by which the monomer “is
reacted to form an oligomer . . . or to form a polymer.”
Thus, we are of the view that one skilled in this art would
reasonably understand the subject matter claimed through the
use of this phrase. The Beachcombers, Int’l. v. WildeWood
Creative Prods., 31 F.3d 1154, 1158, 31 USPQ2d 1653, 1656
(Fed. Cir. 1994); Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs,
Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576, 1 USPQ2d 1081, 1088 (Fed. Cir.
1986). We also cannot agree with the examiner that the term
“‘plastic’ is too broad” which issue the examiner has framed
as an enablement issue (answer, page 3). This term must be
construed within the context of all of the claim limitations
and not in a vacuum. In re Geerdes, 491 F.2d 1260, 1262-63,
180 USPQ 789, 791-92 (CCPA 1974). Thus, it is clear from
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007