Interference No. 103,029
preferred range. These two findings support a conclusion11
that the evidence intrinsic to the Federl disclosure would
have led one of ordinary skill to understand that the
specific embodiment is 50:50 ECH/EO on a weight basis.
Furthermore, witnesses Giles, Barnhouse and Yu all
agreed that, based on the above-noted observation, i.e., that
the text of the Federl patent referred only to weight ratios,
they would interpret the specific embodiment of the Federl
patent as
referring to a copolymer that was 50:50 by weight. KR348-49;
KR640; KR142, respectively. While we recognize that the test
for descriptive support is an objective standard that inquires
not what any actual witness would have understood from a
disclosure but what a hypothetical person of ordinary skill
would have understood, this testimony provides important
evidence that one of ordinary skill would have appreciated
that the specific embodiment was on a weight basis.
11 1:1 molar ECH/EO copolymer is 68/32 ECH/EO by
weight. KR344.
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007