Appeal No. 95-3647
Application No. 08/169,782
However, it is well settled that claim language must be
considered not in a vacuum but in light of the supporting
specification and teachings of the prior art as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. 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 concur with appellants that the first paragraph
at page 4 of the specification adequately defines the language
"stable, gel-free" such that one of ordinary skill in the art
would understand that the language defines a microdispersion that
is free flowing and that may contain some gelled polymer, as long
as the microdispersion is still pourable. As recognized by the
examiner, an applicant may be his own lexicographer, and we do
not find the claim language so repugnant to the ordinary meaning
of its terms that appellants be precluded from its use.
We now turn to the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4-9 under
§ 103 over Fong in view of Anderson and Candau. Appellants do
not dispute that Fong discloses a hydroxamated vinyl polymer in
the water phase in a water-in-oil emulsion (column 6, lines
9-19). Like appellants, Fong employs the water-in-oil emulsion
as a flocculating agent, and Fong teaches that the emulsion may
be prepared in accordance with the Anderson reissued patent.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007