Appeal No. 1997-2234
Application 08/254,345
in the range from about 0.860 g/cc to about 0.940 g/cc, more
preferably in the range of from about 0.870 g/cc to about 0.920
g/cc” (column 5, lines 57-61 and column 7, lines 33-37), the
examiner argues that Norpoth’s ethylene alpha-olefin polymers,
inclusive of the preferred and exemplified Dowlex 2045-03
polymer, “read on” appellants’ claimed “plastomer” component.
Thus, an issue of concern raised by the prior art rejections is
whether the claimed term, “plastomer”, is effective to
distinguish the appealed subject matter from the prior art.
We give the language in question in appellants’ claims,
i.e., the term “plastomer”, its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with appellants’ specification. See In
re Zeltz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989). Appellants’ specification, however, contains an
essentially inexplicable, inconsistent, nonlimiting definition
for the term “plastomer”. Thus, as stated by appellants in their
specification beginning at page 10, line 25:
As used herein, the term “plastomer” refers to any of a
family of thermoplastic-elastomeric, styrene/butadiene
copolymers whose molecules have a radial or star
structure in which several polybutadiene chains extend
from a central hub, with a polystyrene block at the
outward end of each segment. Preferably, the plastomer
comprises homogeneous ethylene/alpha olefin copolymer;
more preferably, homogeneous ethylene/alpha-olefin
copolymer having a density of from about 0.86 to 0.91;
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007