Appeal No. 95-4934
Application 07/908,650
15 through 19 are correspondingly rejected over Horibe in view
of Jackson or Hodson . 2
We refer to the several briefs and answers of record for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by
the appellant and the examiner concerning the above noted
rejections.
These rejections will be sustained for the reasons well
stated by the examiner in her principle and supplemental
answers which reasons we expressly adopt as our own. We add
the following comments for emphasis and completeness.
The pivotal issue on this appeal is whether the Example 3
composition of Horibe constitutes an emulsion which is stable
as required by the claims on appeal. It is axiomatic that, in
proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office, claims in
an application are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification and that
claim language should be read 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.
2The appealed claims will stand or fall together; see
page 3 of the brief and page 2 of the answer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007