Appeal No. 95-4300
Application No. 08/165,565
composition. Appellants have failed to overcome the case against patentability, either by
arguments or evidence. The rejection of claims 1-13 and 16-17 is affirmed.
The rejection of Claim 15:
In explaining the rejection of amended Claim 15, the examiner states (page 1 of Paper
No. 26):
In regards to these other rejections of claim 15, Cury's(sic) brominated
polycarbonate simultaneously meets (A) and (D) or appellant's claims. Curry's
brominated polycarbonate has a molecular weight of 20,000-80,000 (col. 1, line
53). Curry's example 4 for instance can be considered to have 60 parts
polyestercarbonate, 6 parts silicon-imide, 35 parts brominated polycarbonate
and 5 parts of appellant's polycarbonate (D) by arbitrarily dividing up the 40
parts of brominated polycarbonate.
It is axiomatic that, in proceedings before the PTO, claims in an application are to be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and that
claims 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 (CAFC
1983). We do not find the examiner's interpretation of the term "polycarbonate" as used in
defining to component "(D)" of claim 15 as reasonable in light of the specification
and as one of ordinary skill would read the noted claim language. At page 8 of the
specification applicants describe the polycarbonate component (D) stating: "Preferably, the
compositions of this invention further contain (D) an aromatic unsubstituted polycarbonate".
(Emphasis added). The specification continues on pages 8-9 to describe the preparation of
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007