Appeal No. 96-3684
Application 08/318,034
Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Engineering (EPSE), Vol. 1, John Wiley & Sons, New
York, pp. 229-231 (1992).
The Rejections
I. Claims 10-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Weller in
view of Hilsum
II. Claims 10-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hilsum in
view of Zhao.
III. Claims 10-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Herron in
view of Enoki and EPSE.
Opinion
After careful consideration of the respective positions advanced by appellants and the examiner,
we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejections.
Claim 10 is directed to a doped semiconductor particle having a diameter of less than 100
D “encapsulated with a surfactant.” Before considering the rejections, we must first construe the meaning
of the terms “encapsulated” and “surfactant.” Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d
1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We give the terms of the appealed claims their ordinary meaning unless we
find that another meaning is intended by appellants. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44
USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322
(Fed. Cir. 1989). The ordinary meaning of “surfactant” is “[a]ny compound that affects (usually reduces)
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007