Appeal No. 96-2665
Application 07/975,811
examiner, the claim language "relative amounts" is vague. The 3
examiner queries whether appellant intends 99.9% polymer and
99.9% bicarbonate to achieve a rainfast condition and a solid,
respectively (page 3 of Supplemental Answer, first paragraph).
However, it is well settled that claim language is not to be read
in a vacuum but in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the 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).
In the present case, we agree with appellant that when the claim
language "relative amounts" is read in light of the
specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
that, depending upon the specific components utilized, the
relative amounts of the recited components is that which produces
the stated result, i.e., a rainfast microemulsion (claim 45) and
a clear liquid (claim 46). As noted by appellant, page 7 of the
specification, second paragraph, describes preferable ranges in
percent for each of the claimed components. We agree with
appellant that only routine experimentation would be required of
3We note that claim 46 does not contain the language
"relative amounts."
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007