Appeal No. 97-0292
Application 07/814,779
embodiment or as being unsatisfactory for the intended
purpose” (emphasis ours). In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148
USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966). We also observe that what Cline
considers “ineffective” vis-à-vis what the appellants consider
“ineffective” is not clear.
Moreover, we did not simply rely on lines 39-43 of column
2 of Cline as the appellants imply. In our decision we also
made note of the fact that in Cline:
the first line of the Abstract and column 2, lines
17-27, state that the invention is for a wrapper
having “at least 15% by weight magnesium oxide in
combination with at least 0.5% by weight of a
specific chemical adjuvant,” without making any
mention whatsoever of “other convention fillers”
being used. Equally significant is the fact that in
independent claim 1 Cline sets forth that the
wrapper contains “at least 15% magnesium oxide and
at least 0.5% of a chemical adjuvant salt,” without
setting forth that the wrapper contains “other
conventional fillers.” [Page 6.]
The appellants also urge that they are the “ones” skilled
in the art and imply that, as such, their interpretation of
Cline should be dispositive. However, as the court stated in
In re Vamco Mach. & Tool, Inc., 752 F.2d 1564, 1575, 24 USPQ2d
617, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1985): “We too can read this patent and
understand what it describes.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007