Appeal No. 1997-1018
Application No. 08/369,944
The examiner finds that “Salve S.A. (GB 1,381,185)
discloses the claimed composition but fails to disclose the
vapor transmission rate” with the examiner taking the position
that “12% of component (b) of Salve S.A. constitutes about 15%
as claimed” and that the composition of the adhesive of Salve
inherently has the claimed vapor transmission rate (Answer,
page 5).
Appellants argue that the difference in amount of
hydroxyethyl methacrylate in the composition recited in claim
21 on appeal is at least 25% higher than that disclosed by
Salve (Brief, page 5).
The examiner argues that the lower limit recited in claim
21 on appeal is “about 15%” and this amount “encompasses the
upper limit of ‘12%’ disclosed by Salve” (Answer, page 8).
Since both the examiner and appellants contest the limitation
of “about 15%,” we must construe this term to define its scope
and meaning. Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43
USPQ2d 1030,
1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
“ . . . [T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed
claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007