Ex parte ZIOLO et al. - Page 4


                     Appeal No. 1996-3980                                                                                                                                              
                     Application 08/290,125                                                                                                                                            

                                However, we cannot agree with the examiner that this ground of rejection extends to                                                                    
                     claims 1 through 3 and 5 through 9, 11, 20 through 22 and 24 through 27 by virtue of the recitation of                                                            
                     “a resin” in claims 1 and 20 (answer, page 3).  Indeed, the fact that a claimed genus may encompass                                                               
                     species not described in the original application does not established that, prima facie, the claimed                                                             
                     genus invention was not described to one of ordinary skill in this art by the original application at the                                                         
                     time it was filed.  Compare In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1394, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA                                                                       
                     1972).  Accordingly, we reverse the ground of rejection under § 112, first paragraph, written                                                                     
                     description requirement, with respect to claims 1 through 3 and 5 through 9, 11, 20 through 22 and 24                                                             
                     through 27.                                                                                                                                                       
                                We further fail to find that the Markush format employed in claim 4 renders that claim indefinite                                                      
                     because the recitation at line 7 of claim 4, pointed to by the examiner, is plainly a Markush group                                                               
                     defining a member of the broader Markush group encompass by the claim.  Thus, the comma desired                                                                   
                     by the examiner would render the claim indefinite.  Accordingly, we reverse the ground of rejection of                                                            
                     claim 4 under § 112, second paragraph.                                                                                                                            
                                We begin our consideration of the issues involved with the grounds of rejection based on prior                                                         
                     art in this appeal by determining the scope of the magnetic nanocomposite compositions encompassed                                                                
                     by appealed claim 1, mindful that the terms of this claim must be given the broadest reasonable                                                                   
                     interpretation consistent with appellants’ specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill                                                      
                     in this art.  In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-56,                 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-30 (Fed. Cir.                                                            
                     1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).  It is clear from                                                                
                     the use of the transitional term “comprising” that the magnetic nanocomposite composition must contain                                                            
                     at least “about 0.001” weight percent of “nanocrystalline particles of Fe O ” that are “bonded to” and                                                            
                                                                                                                            3  4                                                       
                     “uniformly dispersed” in at least “about 40” weight percentage of “a resin,” and can include addition                                                             
                     ingredients.  See Exxon Chemical Patents Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp., 64 F.3d 1553, 1555, 35 USPQ2d                                                                    
                     1801, 1802 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The claimed composition is defined as comprising - meaning containing                                                               
                     at least - five specific ingredients.”); In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686-87, 210 USPQ 795, 802-03                                                                 
                     (CCPA 1981) (“As long as one of the monomers in the reaction is propylene, any other monomer may                                                                  


                                                                                        - 4 -                                                                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007