Appeal No. 95-4216
Application 08/035,076
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with
appellants that the aforementioned rejections are not well
founded. Accordingly, we do not sustain these rejections.
Interpretation of appellants’ independent claims
During patent prosecution, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and the claim language is to be read in view of
the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Sneed, 710
F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re
Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976).
Appellants’ claims 17 and 29, which are the only
independent claims, require that the composition includes an
oxychlorination catalyst, a diluent, and a solution or
suspension of a catalytically active (claim 17) or reactive
(claim 29) copper compound. Regarding the solution or
suspension of the copper compound, appellants state that
-3-3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007