Appeal No. 96-2504
Application 08/318,328
point, the examiner is on sound legal footing. See Swain v.
Crittendon, 332 F.2d 820, 823, 141 USPQ 811, 813 (CCPA 1964),
and In re Pangrossi, 277 F.2d 181, 185, 125 USPQ 410, 413
(CCPA 1960). Rather, appellants maintain that "the binder
portion of the composition has been closed to other binder
components, such as the adhesive binders of Hombach et al."
(page 4 of principal
brief). We however, find no error in the examiner's reasoning
articulated at page 5 of the answer:
Consistent with the PTO's policy to interpret claims
in their broadest meaning reasonable to one of
ordinary skill in the art, it is the examiner's
position that "containing" allows the claimed
composition to contain any other ingredients and is
analogous to "comprising". Therefore, the added
adhesive binder of Hombach et al. is not excluded.
The consisting essentially of and consisting
language cited by the applicant serves to limit the
polyisocyanate subsequently described to those
having the parameters following consisting
essentially of and consisting.
The appealed claims do not specify that the recited binder is
the only binder in the coating composition. In our view, the
appealed claims encompass an aqueous coating composition
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007