Appeal No. 1997-2184
Application 08/278,441
found on page 5, line 29 through page 6, line 16 of the
specification of exemplary types of "non-interfering"
substituents, we find the terminology "non-interfering
substituent" as used in the claims would have been clearly
understood by the hypothetical person of ordinary skill.
Likewise, the examiner has reached his conclusion about
the meaning of the term "an acid linker having an acid linker
length of 1 to 10" only by ignoring appellants' definition of
the same in their specification. At page 7, line 7,
appellants define the term as:
a divalent linking group symbolized as, -(La)-, which has
the function of joining the indene nucleus to an acidic
group ...
Thereafter, on page 8, line 6 through page 9, line 5,
appellants further define what they intend by their claim
terminology.
We cannot say that the terminology is conventional but it
is defined. Admittedly, the claims are also of considerable
scope; however, this, in and of itself, is not a basis for
rejection. U.S. Steel Corp. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 865
F.2d 1247, 1251, 9 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1989). As the
court suggested in In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 909, 164
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007