Appeal No. 1997-4433
Application No. 08/414,381
This rejection cannot be sustained.
We agree with the appellants that the applied reference
contains no teaching or suggestion of the appealed claim
requirement for a rubbery polymer comprising a blend of from
about 12% or less by weight of the total composition of an
ethylene-propylene-diene terpolymer.
As indicated by the appellants on page 4 of the subject
specification and emphasized by the examiner in the answer,
Run 6 in the Example 1 table of the Briddell patent discloses
an adhesive composition having a quantity of EPDM rubber
(which corresponds to the here claimed terpolymer) that is
equal to 16% of the total composition. According to the
examiner, “the claim language ‘about 12%’ EDPM [sic, EPDM] is
rendered obvious by the disclosure of about 16% EDPM [sic,
EPDM] at Run 6 of [Briddell’s] Example 1" (answer, page 4).
We cannot agree.
In proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office,
claims in an application are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification
and are read in light of the specification as they would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Sneed,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007