Appeal No. 1997-1515
Application 08/361,891
patentable (answer, pages 5 and 7). 3
The preamble of appellant’s claim 49 states that the
process is for forming an electrophoretic fluid for use in an
electrophoretic display. The entire specification and the
prior art are to be considered when determining the meaning of
this claim. See In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289
(Fed. Cir. 1983); Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
USPQ 459 (1966); In re Voss, 557 F.2d 812, 194 USPQ 267 (CCPA
1977). It is clear,
in view of appellant’s specification, that appellant is
claiming a process for making an electrophoretic fluid which
is capable of being used in an electrophoretic display (see,
e.g., page 5, lines 20-23; page 11, lines 25-27).
The examiner argues that because appellant teaches that
the surface functionality of appellant’s particles can be
varied by introducing functional monomers such as methyl
methacrylate (page 10, lines 14-19), and Ahmed teaches that
his hydrophilic monomers such as methacrylic acid can be
3Appellant’s claimed invention actually is directed
toward a process rather than a composition as argued by the
examiner.
-5-5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007