Appeal No. 95-5125
Application No. 07/891,300
Appellant submits that the claims on appeal do not stand
or fall together. In contrast to appellant’s position, our
decision is based upon issues, which in our analysis, are
common to and shared by each of the claims before us. We will
therefore confine our discussion to claim 34.
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellants and the examiner with respect to the
(rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103). We shall not sustain the
examiner's rejection.
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).
Each of appellant’s claims require the presence of
“polyethylene oxide.” As understood by those of ordinary
skill in the art polyethylene oxide contains multiple linear -
(CH -CH -O-) repeating units, which constitutes the general
2 2 n
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007