1995-2802
Application No. 07/983,002
Appellants and the examiner disagree as to the scope of
the claimed “durable hydrophilic surface modifier associated”
with each channel. Appellants argue that “durable” is defined
in the specification and would not include the Masuda
treatment of the fibers with alkali to render the fiber
surface hydrophilic in a physical rather than a chemical way
(Brief, pages 5-6). The examiner states that Masuda teaches a
hydrophilic surface modifier but “[t]he question remains if
said patented modifier is durable.” (Answer, page 9). The
examiner states that appellants have failed to define what
constitutes “durable” in the specification and claims (Id.).
The examiner also concludes that there is reason to believe
the modifier of Masuda is “durable” because Masuda teaches the
intention to produce “durable” products (Answer, paragraph
bridging pages 9-10, citing Masuda, column 5, lines 64-66).
Implicit in our review of the examiner’s obviousness
analysis is that the claim must first have been correctly
construed to define the scope and meaning of each contested
limitation. Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 1460
n.3, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032, 1035 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Accordingly,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007