Appeal No. 1997-2233
Application No. 08/365,384
schedule by using the recited equations in accordance with the
iterative technique disclosed by appellants. The examiner is
of the view that this is nothing more than a "mental" step and
is analogous to process language in a product-by-process claim
which is anticipated by an identical product made by a
different process. We cannot subscribe to this view. We are
dealing here with a determination of the scope of a process
claim, not a product-by-process claim. Due weight must be
accorded to all the recited limitations in a process claim.
Thus we agree with appellants that it is eminently reasonable
to construe the claim as requiring a step of predetermining
the requisite feeding schedule "before the polymerization" by
use of the specifically recited equations in accordance with
the disclosed iterative technique. In other words, we view
that step as being an integral part of the claimed process.
In doing so, anticipation and obviousness become problematic
inasmuch as the prior art does not teach or suggest the
particular technique used by appellants to determine the
monomer feeding schedule. Certainly, Hendy does not
predetermine the schedule before the polymerization reaction
is conducted since Hendy relies upon empirical data generated
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007