Appeal No. 95-3858
Application 07/931,628
copolymer is being claimed. However, we concur with appellants
that when the claim language is read in light of the present
specification, as it must be, one of ordinary skill in the art
would understand that appellants are claiming a random copolymer
comprising the monomeric units recited in the structural formula.
Appellants’ specification, at page 8, lines 4-7, expressly states
“[t]he vinyl acetate monomer is randomly polymerized with the
polyalkylene oxide containing allyl glycidyl ether unit to yield
the polyol in the tubular reactor” (emphasis added). Since a
random copolymer is understood in the art as an arrangement of
monomer units in a statistically random placement along a linear
chain, as opposed to a block copolymer which comprises, long,
linear sequences of one monomer unit followed by long, linear
sequences of another monomer unit, we are satisfied that one of
ordinary skill in the art would interpret claim 1 as a copolymer
comprising vinyl acetate units and the polyalkylene oxide units
arranged in a statistically random linear configuration. We
remind the examiner that simply because claim language can be
literally interpreted to embrace non-enabled embodiments, such
as, here, a block copolymer, this does not render the claim
susceptible to a rejection under § 112, first paragraph. See In
re Kamal, 398 F.2d 867, 872, 158 USPQ 320, 324 (CCPA 1968); In re
Sarett, 327 F.2d 1005, 1019, 140 USPQ 474, 486 (CCPA 1964).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007