Appeal No. 95-5097
Application No. 08/072,807
Yu to be reasonable. We note that there is no evidence on
this record of any other meaning of the language recited in
appealed claim 10.
Appellants’ argument that there is no explicit
description in Yu regarding the halogenated copolymer (Brief,
pages 9 and 11, Reply to Examiner’s Supplemental Answer, page
4) is not well taken. Although Yu does not disclose an
example directed to the halogenated copolymer, the issue is
whether the total disclosure of Yu identifies the claimed
halogenated copolymer with sufficient specificity to
constitute a description thereof within the purview of § 102.
See In re Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 315, 197 USPQ 5, 8 (CCPA
1978). As the examiner notes on pages 2-3 of the Supplemental
Examiner’s Answer, Yu only discloses two types of copolymer
(halogenated and non-halogenated, see Yu, column 1, lines 31-
38). We agree with the examiner that the total disclosure of
Yu identifies the claimed halogenated copolymer with
sufficient specificity to constitute a description thereof
under § 102.
Appellants’ argument that Yu requires a grafted polymer
and the claimed “halogenated copolymer” does not literally or
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007