Appeal No. 1997-0186
Application No. 08/314,568
See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51
(CCPA 1969) (claims cannot be read in a vacuum but instead
must be read in the light of the specification).
Furthermore, appellants explain that (Brief, p. 4):
The term "silicate", as used in Claim 3, would
suggest, to the person in the art, a silicon atom
carrying four oxygen substituents, and the
additional term "tetraalkyl" would indicate that
there are four alkyl groups in the molecule, one
alkyl group being on each of those four oxygen
atoms.
Appellants rely on a definition of "tetraethyl orthosilicate"
appearing in the Dictionary of Organic Compounds to support
their position. See Reply Brief, p. 4; attachment to Reply
Brief.
We find appellants' position to be persuasive.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, the rejection of
claims 3 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is2
reversed.
D. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
2Claim 14 depends from claim 3.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007