Appeal No. 1999-0226 Page 7
Application No. 08/447,217
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 4-7, and reply brief,
pp. 3-6) that Tautvydas does not teach or suggest "an aqueous
solution of polyethylene glycol." We agree. In that regard,
it is our determination that contrary to the position of the
examiner the claimed "aqueous solution of polyethylene3
glycol" is not readable on the gel compositions disclosed by4
Tautvydas for the reasons set forth by the appellants.
Specifically, the claimed "aqueous solution of polyethylene
glycol" is not readable on the polyoxyethylene-
polyoxypropylene block copolymers disclosed by Tautvydas.
Since all the limitations of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12
and 16 are not found in Tautvydas for the reasons set forth
3See page 5, first paragraph, of the answer and the first
three paragraphs of the examiner's Response to Argument (pages
7-9 of the answer).
4The inquiry as to whether a reference anticipates a
claim must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the
claim and what subject matter is described by the reference.
As set forth by the court in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,
713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984), it is only necessary for the
claims to "'read on' something disclosed in the reference,
i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference,
or 'fully met' by it."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007